Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:19, 31 August 2011

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Shortcuts

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Miradre

Blocked for one month. -- Atama頭 19:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Miradre

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mathsci (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Topic ban under WP:ARBR&I.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

[1] (historic record of discussion on Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology)

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required): A warning was given in the discussion above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Miradre has been editing the article Criticism of evolutionary psychology for a while now. The subject is not directly related to the topic ban, but there is nevertheless some proximity with topics covered in Race and intelligence and History of the race and intelligence controversy. The article currently contains a section Reification fallacy (historic link) which in its first paragraph discusses in detail the reification of intelligence, a topic introduced by Stephen Jay Gould in the precise context of the debate on R&I in the two articles above (it is discussed in those articles). I have advised Miradre that even discussing that section, or proposing that he would move it and thus edit that content, is a clear violation of the topic ban imposed by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The responses of Miradre in the section linked to above were evasive and gave no recognition that this particular topic ("the reification of intelligence") lay well within the topic ban. The discussion took place on the talk page of the article because Miradre has previously blanked messages from me on their user talk page.

Another edit of this kind occurred in the section on "criticism" in Sociobiology, a week into the topic ban. The beginning of the section makes it clear that the criticisms were related to the debate on race and intelligenc: there is a wikilink to the article race and intelligence. This material, including its relation with sociobiology, is also covered in the article on the history of the race and intelligence controversy. Miradre edited the section here[2], two paragraphs after the paragraph where the debate on race and intelligence is discussed. Miradre has edited other parts of this article more recently.

Miradre added the section on IQ in psychopathy 2 days before the topic ban,[3] which is fine. But correcting somebody else's edit to it after the ban [4] does not seem quite right.

Userspace edits like this [5], with an explicit discussion of R&I content and literature, are also blatantly pushing at the limits of the topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 11:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) further edits. Mathsci (talk) 11:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

further comments not directly related to this request

The content in this case specifically concerns Gould's use of the term "reification of intelligence" in the debate on race and intelligence as the historic link above shows. It has never been used in another context to my knowledge. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have written, one of the references in the section under discussion is to Gould's The Mismeasure of Man. The subject is taken up in that reference in Chapter VI, "The Real Error of Cyril Burt: Factor Analysis and The Reification of Intelligence". In that chapter, Gould writes, "It is scarcely surprising that Arthur Jensen used Sir Cyril's figures as the most important datum in his notorious article (1969) on supposedly inheritable and irradicable differences in intelligence between whites and blacks in America." That makes the context very clear and leaves little room for ambiguity. Mathsci (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miradre proposed moving the section here. [6] He had moved another section to Nature and nurture previously by deleting it and copy-pasting it into that article. Mathsci (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to comment on Miradre's edits elsewhere, which have involved conflicts with multiple editors and administrators on articles that prior to his editing were neutral and unproblematic. That is not the concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted an edit by A.B.C.Hawkes (talk · contribs), identified by checkusers as a sockpuppet acvount and now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry by Sandstein. The original puppetmaster seems to be A.K.Nole, based on similar postings in the past on ArbCom-related pages (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole). Mathsci (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My voluntary withdrawal from editing articles or talk pages directly related to race and intelligence, as interpreted by me, is my own choice. I am not under any formal ban. List of international rankings has nothing to do with the topic of R&I and Miradre is misguided in suggesting otherwise. Strict ArbCom topic bans apply to Miradre, Ferahgo the Assassin, Captain Occam and Ephery (= David.Kane). Mathsci (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe that Captain Occam can comment here. He appears to be breaking the terms of his extended topic ban; and certainly, in reviewing my edits, which are subject to no formal restrictions, is way off-topic here.He is indeed treating this ArbCom noticeboard as if it were WP:ANI, in a frivolous manner. I have made a request to ArbCom here to clarify this matter. There I have also brought up the issues of meatpuppetry in which Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Asassin have been involved over the past year, in that way breaking the terms of their own topic bans through proxies. Mathsci (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another side comment In the past two weeks or so Mikemikev has created a flurry of sockpuppets, some extremely malicious. The most malicious involve outing explicitly in user names. All traces of these have been removed from wikipedia, thanks to the kind help of Fred Bauder, Casliber, Elen of the Roads and LessHeard VanU. In addition Mikemikev has posted nasty racist comments on Stormfront and created two racist attack pages on ED.ch, dealt with by an administrator there with an account here. As Comicania he created an attack file on Commons which was dealt with here and on Commons with the kind help of MastCell, Moonriddengirl and Philippe Beaudette of WMF. It has taken a lot of effort and vigilance in project space, with the dedicated help of checkusers, to deal with this disruption connected with WP:ARBR&I. Arbitrators have been kept informed about these problems and continue to be extremely helpful. Captain Occam's suggestion that I be restricted in project space shows no awareness of the ongoing problems caused by the community banned editor Mikemikev or of similar disruption by his own meatpuppets. Mathsci (talk) 23:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sample "agenda driven" editing of Miradre: Miradre adds BLP violating information about Amy Goodman [7] to Democracy Now! based on a public tax declaration. Maunus removes the citation to the source. [8] I remove the unsourced BLP violation per WP:BLPPRIMARY. [9] On the talk page Miradre then suggests[10] using an extract in the article drawn from this quote from a website:

click to view

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Democracy Now’s pro-Muslim and anti-Christian bias shows again in their lopsided reporting on events in the Ivory Coast. If you hate Christians and support all Muslim actions, no matter how radical or violent, then you will love the reporting that issues from Democracy Now.

"Far left media outlets such as Democracy Now are not so much actual media outlets as they are pro Muslim propaganda machines for the spread of radical Islam globally. A more appropriate name for what they are doing might be: 'Global Jihad Now' as every single news item which covers the Mideast out of this portal is strongly slanted in support of the global Islamic cause."

Mathsci (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC) and more recently this attempted BLP violation. [11] Mathsci (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Samples of Miradre's editing in project space Firstly on WP:COIN here Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Academia:, where two separate queries were raised by Itsmejudith and me. Miradre had suspected that Itsmejudith and I might be academics (he had repeatedly questioned us) and therefore should not be editing the article Academia per WP:COI. On WP:COIN Miradre is warned about harassment by Atama and his complaint dismissed as frivolous by multiple users, including MastCell. Secondly here on WP:CP, where Miradre tries to get me sanctioned for reproducing inaccessible text for discussion and also temporarily making available off-wiki a copy of a source, that later turns out to be freely available on the web. Miradre had previously created content using only the abstract without checking the source, to which he had no access. Mathsci (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Occam and Ludwigs2 Please see this request by Captain Occam. [12]. Captain Occam might find it helpful to look at this ArbCom case and in particular this remedy. Mathsci (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My editing Contrary to Captain Occam's suggestions, my break from creating new articles this year is not due to a lack of interest but events in real life (research in mathematics, lecturing in Cambridge, a major concert commitment in June, several minor problems of ill health, including bronchitis in April-May and a head injury sustained near the Porte d'Aix two weeks ago, etc). Article creation for me at least is very time-consuming. At present I am more than halfway through learning BWV 529 from Trio sonatas for organ, BWV 525–530, which I'm contemplating making into a blue link. Mathsci (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pinch of salt Memills claims of 'agenda driven' editors apparently extend to uninvolved administrators, so those commenting here should please be careful. Here [13] Memills refers to Dougweller, Sandstein and MaterialScientist as a WP:TAGTEAM because they all suggested page numbers were recommended in citations from lengthy sources. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Boothello This is a WP:SPA created shortly after the topic ban of Captain Occam was extended to Ferhago the Assassin. He edits exclusively in the area covered by that topic ban and with their point of view. Despite the fact that he edits relatively little and in no common areas to me, he shares the same animosity towards me [14] as Captain Occam, Ferahgo Asassin and one of their meatpuppets SightWatcher (whose real life identity has already been confirmed with ArbCom). Prior to Miradre's topic ban, Boothello has been outspoken in his support for Miardre's editing;[15] it is hard to know how to interpret that now. Like SightWatcher,[16][17] without warning he has made requests concerning me directly to members of ArbCom. [18][19] Perhaps because of the questionmark hanging over his account, shared by other users, his requests have gone unanswered. Like Captain Occam, Boothello is participating here as if this arbitration enforcement board were WP:ANI. Boothello has explained his editing history on previous occasions[20][21]: he is a reformed vandal, previously editing anonymously, who in November suddenly developed an interest in race and intelligence because of a course at university. There are other more plausible explanations of Boothello's editing history. Mathsci (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by Mikemikev Two IPsocks of Mikemikev—easily identifiable in view of his suspected and confirmed socks and their editing history—have disrupted this request, the second with racist abuse, some of which is still visible. (Aprock and I reverted all but one of the edits.) Both ipsocks have been blocked at my request. Miradre is now attempting to use that disruption for their own purposes. [22][23] The sockpuppetry was blatant per WP:DUCK, although Miradre chose to question my identification. Miradre's reactions and continued wikilawyering about this disruption looks like WP:GAME to me and that game is not cricket :) Mathsci (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding comments The extended topic bans imposed here on Captain Occam and Ferahgo the Assassin should probably be revised to exclude compulsarily participation in WP:AE requests related to WP:ARBR&I in which they are not involved. As a result of Captain Occam's intervention, others, including me, have made general comments here on Miradre's editing patterns following his topic ban.

Taking into account the views of multiple experienced editors commenting here about Miradre's edits (presented as a consequence of Captain Occam's comments), it would appear that Miradre might be heading for a, regrettably unavoida.ble, indefinite community ban. That of course is not a concern of this noticeboard. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [24]

Discussion concerning Miradre

Statement by Miradre

The topic ban is regarding the intersection of race and intelligence. There was no discussion regarding race. Neither was there a discussion regarding intelligence. I was simply pointing out that the given source does not mention evolutionary psychology at all.[25] I was making no claim regarding and did not discus either race or intelligence and thus not their intersection. The Reification (fallacy) is of course not something limited to race and intelligence or for that matter invented by Gould but a general logical fallacy discussed in numerous other areas. Miradre (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Futhermore, the claim by Matschi that the terms intelligence and reification are somehow inseparable from the race and intelligence discussion and "has never been used in another context to my knowledge" is very strange considering that there is no mention of race in the "Reification fallacy" section. Furthermore, there are 18,600 Google Scholar hits for the terms "intelligence" and "reification". Most do not seem to mention race.[26]
Not sure why Mathsci brings up that quote from Gould's book. As noted above, I made no claims regarding and did not discuss either race or intelligence. Obviously therefore not their intersection. I stated that there is no mention of evolutionary psychology in the claimed sources.[27] Neither does the "Reification fallacy" section discuss the race and intelligence controversy or mention race at all. The Reification (fallacy) is a common logical fallacy in numerous different fields. Miradre (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has more recently also added a diff from the sociobiology article which he claims is related to an hidden, unsourced link several paragraphs away[28]. The link is hidden under the name "controversies in the history of intelligence testing" and the article text itself does not mention race. Anyway, the is–ought problem is about statements of the type "if there is rape/infanticide/incest among some animal species, then humans ought to practice rape/infanticide/incest also". It is not about the race and intelligence controversy. None of the race and intelligence articles mention that problem. Miradre (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci also objects to me removing an incorrectly placed citation mark in the psychopathy article.[29] Had nothing to do with the intersection of race and intelligence. Shows the desperate nature of the accusations.Miradre (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note also this seems be part of a general harassment of me. Wherever I go Mathsci and sometimes Aprock appears to oppose me, even if they never had made any edits to the articles before. In particular Mathsci's almost only recent activity in Wikipedia is following me around as can be seen from his edit history. Often to articles he has never edited before I started editing them. As well as making numerous different complaints to various noticeboards or persons regarding me or the articles I edit. Something should be done about what seems to have become an almost scary obsession with me. Miradre (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the earlier topic banned Mathsci has clearly broken his promise to the ArbCom to stay away from this area. [30] See for example his edits here in a discussion regarding Lynn's book IQ and the Wealth of Nations: [31][32][33]. Miradre (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has now added a strange, misleading, and inaccurate misrepresentation of a dispute at the Democracy Now article. I did not mention that quote in the talk page in response to removing the information from the tax statement as Mathsci claims. I mentioned that biased quote as an ironic counter against the equally biased self-congratulatory, self-published quotes that are prominent in the article. As anyone can see on Talk:Democracy_Now!#NPOV_Dispute:_Quotes. As well as Mathsci's refusal to include anything negative. Also, this is unrelated to this AE case. Miradre (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci continues with his misrepresentations. First he implies that I had made a COI complaint while I only asked him to consider this on the talk page of the article. It was Mathsci who made a complaint regarding this on COI board which lead to no action since I had made no COI complaint. Regarding the copyright complaint Mathsci had uploaded a copyrighted paper to his webpage and gave a public link to this. This link was of course removed by the reviewing administrator. Also, again, this is completely unrelated to this AE case so I do not understand why he takes it up. Seems to be further harassment. Miradre (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci continues with completely unrelated issues. Yes, I accept the result of the discussion at the BLP board which I initiated but it has nothing to do with the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with yet more unrelated issues, Mathsci now starts talking of an "unavoidable, indefinite" community ban. Every one of the critical editors who have expressed opinions here are editors who have been involved in extensive content disputes with me. They are not uninvolved or representative of the community. I note that I edit constructively and add substantial new material to Wikipedia from academic sources while Mathsci's only activity these days seems to be to participate in disputes and WP:WIKIHOUND and revert those editors he dislikes. See also Captain Occam's comments regarding this below. Miradre (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci is now accusing an evolutionary psychologist objecting to his view of having a COI. This is just as incorrect as it would be to accuse the anthropologists supporting him of having a COI. Also, it likely violates the prohibition against using COI accusations in order to gain the upper hand in disputes. Miradre (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathsci has also not so subtly accused me of antisemitism. That is offensive and incorrect. I have never made any such edits or comments. In fact, I have repeatedly reverted deletions of material by antisemitic editors regarding IQ. As well as argued that recognition of racial differences in IQ is necessary in order to explain differing group achievements which otherwise likely are seen as unjustified exploitations by high IQ groups and can have, and have had, consequences like persecution and genocide of high IQ groups. See my comments here copied from an earlier ArbCom case: User:Miradre/sandbox2 Miradre (talk) 10:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition Mathsci apparently thinks that the topic ban prohibits me from defending myself against such accusations since he cites the sandbox quoting an earlier arbitration case as additional evidence. Miradre (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aprock: Aprock has already tried to get the ArbCom to ban me for editing such articles in the Request for Clarification but he was ignored. Again taking up exactly the same accusations (including the book Human Accomplishment and its rankings of the fame of individuals) that was ignored by the ArbCom is harassment. None of the articles are about either intelligence or race. Obviously therefore not about their intersection. See also my earlier reply to his identical, ignored accusations earlier before the ArbCom: [34] Miradre (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, he includes an edit that I had self-reverted: [35]
Aprock is also adding various grossly inaccurate personal editorials regarding my edits: "Criticisms of socialism: evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left" (The book argues the opposite), "Bride price: evolutionary psychology explains it all" (Certainly never claimed that), "Incest taboo: genetic explanations for incest" (evolutionary psychology argues for a genetic aversion to incest) (Update: This particular inaccuracy has been fixed now), as well as making claims of promotion due to simply adding evolutionary psychology templates to evolutionary psychology articles. He is also trying to insinuate, for example, that I made 96 edits to the Psychopathy article regarding genetic causes when such edits are only a very small minority of my edits to that article. Miradre (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aprock has added some more incorrect commentary. First, I rarely use primary sources but instead use textbooks and reviews. Second, adding new views is not prohibited but part of NPOV. Third, aprock seems to be arguing that adding any evolutionary psychology material at all is undue in itself since he objects to articles having any mention at all of such views. Fourth, his complaints makes it perfectly clear that he is trying to use AE to win unrelated content disputes. Miradre (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aprock continues making incorrect statements. This is, as clearly stated, a review article: [36] Miradre (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to ResidentAnthropologist (As well as Maunus, AndyTheGrump, and Itsmejudith who consistently turn up and argue with the same strong personal POV on these topics): This comment is somewhat weird. He seems to be arguing that all pages with a discussion of liberal and conservative views are related to race and intelligence. I can assure him that they are not. Also his claim that my view is that "the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I" certainly does not describe my POV on that issue. My POV is that the majority view among academic IQ researchers as has been determined in surveys is correct. Currently one focus for me is improving Wikipedia's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology. Which may be behind ResidentAnthropologist's (as well as Maunus's) objections. However, there are many things in politics and psychology that are not about the race and intelligence controversy. I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on. Miradre (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment to AndyTheGrump: He claims without any evidence that "almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology". Of course, I have already cited evidence to the contrary such as introductory anthropology textbooks on the Cultural Anthropology talk page. But I think his complaint illustrates quite nicely the attempt to use AE enforcement to win content disputes on issues unrelated to the topic ban. Miradre (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment to Itsmejudith: She argues that my "English is poor too so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards." I am not a native speaker. But I have almost all of what I add on my watchlist and "cleaning up" does not seem to occur to any significant degree. Also, this does not seem to be an AE issue. Miradre (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Slrubenstein: Since Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology also look above. First, the representation of the debate at the cultural anthropology has numerous factual errors and misrepresentations but since Slrubenstein admits it did not concern R&I arbitration there is no reason to go into details. Second, evolutionary arguments are not an important or even at all part of the debate and evidence regarding whether racial differences in intelligence are genetic or not. That evidence concerns statistical analyzes of IQ tests, brain scanning, reactions time, genetic testing, and on. Now, there may be evolutionary explanations if it is proven that the differences are genetic but that is another issue. The race and IQ debate is not dependent on evolutionary psychology but it may be that certain views and ideologies in anthropology that some anthropologists here endorse do are dependent on evolutionary psychology views not being true. Again I have avoided any edits concerning either race and intelligence and thus also their intersection. Some seem to be using the topic ban as an excuse to stop me from editing any topic they personally disagree on for other reasons. Miradre (talk) 12:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Miradre

Comments by aprock

I'll start by noting that Miradre has been testing the boundaries of his topic ban from day one. His request for clarification for precise delineation of "broadly construed" was submitted within 24 hours of his topic ban. Since then he has gone on to make edits in a large number of articles testing the boundary. The topic area is "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed" as described in the case amendments. Miradre has pursued two topic areas related to the topic ban. Miradre's edits in these topic areas have generated significant dispute and disruption. Extensive walls of text have been produced on talk pages and notice boards involving a diverse group of editors. Links to such discussions are included.

The first topic area is that of evolutionary explanations for behavior and ability. This is a generalization of the point of view that Miradre was pushing in the topic area when he was banned. Specifically, Miradre was promoting content which supported the position that intelligence is genetically linked to race.

Over the past month, Miradre has pursued the promotion of evolutionary psychology across 43 articles, many of which had no previous mention of the topic. Much of the content added is based on synthesis of primary sources, and generally adds undue weight to the view of evolutionary psychologists. This is exactly the same disruptive editing pattern that characterized Miradres approach to editing race/intelligence related articles. I ask that this specific issue addressed. If this is not the correct venue for this behavior to be addressed, I ask that an admin or ArbCom member suggest a more appropriate forum.

Editing of artilces to promote the views of evolutionary psychology and genetic determinism.

A Darwinian Left: [37] genetically determined behavior
A Natural History of Rape: [38] genetic evolution of rape
Aggression: [39] evolutionary explanations of aggression
Agoraphobia: [40] evolutionary psychology explanations
Antisocial personality disorder: 9 edits. [41] genetic vs. social explanations
Archaeology: [42] biology vs. sociology
Beard: [43] evolutionary psychology explanations for beards
Bride price: [44] evolutionary psychology explains it all
Causes of sexual violence: [45] evolutionary explanation of rape
Cognitive bias: [46] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Concealed ovulation: [47] evolutionary psychology explanations
Criticism of evolutionary psychology: 106 edits. (see discussion above)

Talk:Criticism of evolutionary psychology: majority of talk page

Criticisms of socialism: [48] evolutionary criticism of socialism from A Darwinian Left
Cultural anthropology: 5 edits. [49] evolutionary/genetic explanations

Talk:Cultural_anthropology#NPOV_dispute: talk page discussion (quite the worthwhile read)

Darwinian literary studies: [50] promoting evolutionary psychology
Disgust: [51] undue synthesis based on single primary source
Dowry: [52] evolutionary psychology explanations for dowries
Evolution of morality: [53] undue synthesis based on single primary source
Evolutionary approaches to depression: [54] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary developmental psychopathology: [55] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary ethics: 7 edits. [56] removing eugenics information
Evolutionary musicology: [57] promotion of evolutionary psychology
Evolutionary psychology: 10 edits. [58] criticisms of environmental explanations

Talk:Evolutionary_psychology#Controversies_section_violates_NPOV: talk page discussion

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard: notice board discussion

Evolutionary psychology of religion: [59] evolutionary explanation of religion
Fear: [60] evolutionary psychology explanations based on primary sourcing
Gender and crime: [61] genetic explanations for gender differences in crime
History of evolutionary psychology [62] touting of evolutionary psychology
Incest taboo: [63] genetic explanations for incest taboo

Talk:Incest taboo#NPOV_dipuste: talk page dispute

Kinship: [64] evolutionary psychology theories

Talk:Kinship#Thesis: talk page dispute

Modularity of the mind: 9 edits. [65] added evolutionary psychology content
Nature vs nurture: 5 edits. [66] moved evolutionary psychology material to the article
Obsessive–compulsive disorder: [67] evolutionary psychology explanations based on primary sourcing
Phobia: [68] evolutionary explanations
Physical attractiveness: [69], [70] promotion of genetic and evolutionary psychology content
Posttraumatic stress disorder: [71] evolutionary psychology section added
Prehistory: [72] spamming evolutionary psychology
Psychopathy: 96 edits. [73] evolutionary explanations

Talk:Psychopathy#Prenatal_precursor_section: talk page discussion

Social anthropology: 6 edits. [74] social vs. evolutionary explanations
Social anxiety disorder: [75] evolutionary explanations
Sociobiological theories of rape: [76] evolutionary explanations of rape
Sperm competition: [77] link article to Sociobiological theories of rape
Syncope (medicine): [78] evolutionary psychology views added
The Blank Slate: 35 edits. The article is about a popular book that argues for more consideration of genetic explanation of human behavior

Talk:The Blank Slate#Book reviews: talk page discussion

Trypanophobia: [79] evolutionary psychology added
Violence: [80] evolutionary/genetic explanations of violence
War: 10 edits. [81] Inserting evolutionary psychology views from The Blank Slate

The second topic area is in the promotion of Charles Murray's book Human Accomplishment. As author of The Bell Curve Charles Murray is a key figure in the race and intelligence debate.

Editing of articles to promote Charles Murray's book:

Discussion at NPOV/N: [82] (archived version: [83])
Aristotle [84]
Einstein's awards and honors [85]
Genius [86]
Historiometry [87]
Isaac Newton [88]
Leonhard Euler [89]

Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Removing_Charles_Murray.27s_Human_Accomplishment: talk page discussion

Shakespeare's reputation [90]

Note that the diffs provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all topical edits.

Comments by ResidentAnthropologist

I too like Captian Occam have been observing the MathSci/Miradre. MathSci is quite open about tracking Mirandre's edits to the encyclopedia. Miradre seems to spew their POV in any article they can think of. Examine the Scenarios Occam Pointed out, where Mirandre attempts this to continue their own POV pushing here:

Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Implicitly by suggesting that "Liberals" are in control of Academia and that they all in a massive "group think." (Thus the mainstream consensus is wrong on R&I) and does the same thing to Academia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
NPR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Template:Public broadcasting are other great examples of continuing "Liberal Vs Conservative" war consistent with far right thinking by attempting to suggest their harmful.
Social anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Cultural Anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) pages are extension of promoting the heredterian POV. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Captain Occam

I should start off by mentioning that although I’m topic banned from R&I, my topic ban makes an exception for AE, based on this request for clarification in which ArbCom determined that topic bans are not intended to prevent editors from opening or posting in AE threads. In the AE thread where my topic ban was expanded, the suggestion that I not participate in AE threads related to the R&I topic area is listed as "not compulsory". This exception is based on the linked request for clarification: "The latest clarification request may have carved out AE requests as a special case, but I see no justification to expand that exception further."

I’ve been paying attention to this issue involving Mathsci and Miradre because of an e-mail Mathsci sent me on June 30th, threatening me with some of the behavior that he’s directing at Miradre if I attempt to appeal my topic ban. (On June 30th I’d had no contact with Mathsci in the past several months—the only context of him e-mailing me was that I was discussing the possibility of appealing my topic ban with Newyorkbrad.) The last time I had to endure the full extent of this from Mathsci was sometime in February, so I’ve been watching his interaction with Miradre to get an idea of how he currently acts towards people whom he regards as his adversaries. What I’ve seen isn’t encouraging.

I am aware of five examples of Mathsci following to Miradre to articles he had never edited before in order to revert Miradre’s edits. In all five examples, literally the first involvement Mathsci ever had in these articles was reverting edits by Miradre.

That’s only the articles in which Mathsci’s absolute first edit to both the article and its talk page was reverting Miradre. If one also includes articles where his first involvement was opposing changes from Miradre without reverting him outright, there are three additional examples: The Blank Slate, in which the first edit Mathsci ever made was tagging content that Miradre added as being non-neutral, [96] as well as Leonhard Euler and Democracy Now!, in which Mathsci’s first-ever participation was to oppose Miradre’s edits on the talk page. [97] [98] The edits that Mathsci opposes from Miradre are on topics as diverse as the possible over-representation of liberals in academia, a book by the psychologist Steven Pinker, and public radio broadcasting. The only common theme to these edits is that regardless of where Miradre goes on Wikipedia, or what sorts of articles he edits, he can always count on Mathsci following him there and opposing him.

There are a few other ways that I think Mathsci’s behavior towards Miradre could be considered harassment:

Mathsci’s habit of restoring his posts in Miradre’s user talk when Miradre attempts to remove them. For example [99] [100], [101] [102], or [103] [104]. (Note the threatening edit summary in the last diff.)
In addition to that edit summary, there have been a few other examples of Mathsci trying to intimidate Miradre by threatening him with a community ban, such as [105] and [106].
This isn't the only example of Mathsci being uncivil towards Miradre, but it might be the best one: [107] [108] [109] [110]
As I understand it, this last exchange (“Please respect my privacy”, and Mathsci’s reaction) is referring to another type of harassment that Mathsci has directed at Miradre, which is publicly posting what he thinks is Miradre’s off-wiki identity and where he thinks Miradre lives. The DeviantArt account that Mathsci claims belongs to Miradre lists its owner’s real name on its main page, so this is an indirect way that Mathsci has revealed what he thinks is Miradre’s real name.
Mathsci has also continued to bring up Miradre’s alleged location in subsequent content disputes, even though Miradre has never voluntarily disclosed this information. [111] [112]

Does it require any explanation what’s wrong with this? Anybody who’s been a Wikipedian for as long as Mathsci must be aware that it isn’t acceptable to try and intimidate another editor by posting private information about them, and that the request “please respect my privacy” from that editor should be responded to with something other than “Ha, ha, ha, ha.” More importantly, Mathsci has already been sanctioned for behavior that’s similar to this. I think in the past year I’ve improved on the behavior for which I was sanctioned in the R&I case (edit warring, etc.) but when I compare Mathsci’s behavior over the past month to the behavior described in his finding of fact, I don’t see any improvement.

---

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s editing, so the purpose of this post isn’t to defend him. However, I think that Mathsci’s recent behavior is problematic enough that admins should consider the application of WP:BOOMERANG here. Perhaps the most appropriate response to this thread would be for Miradre and Mathsci to both be sanctioned.

I’m aware that in the past Mathsci has been a valuable editor because of his useful contributions to articles about math and classical music. However, according to his comment here, as of the beginning of this year Mathsci has lost interest in making contributions to articles. Looking at all of his recent contributions, his exclusive focus now is on pursuing the editors that he regards as his adversaries. This is after several arbitrators already told him here that he should cease his involvement in the R&I topic area. Quoting what Roger Davies said to Mathsci there: “I expressed the hope in the motion lifting the topic restriction that you'd walk away entirely from R&I-related issues. This is because I do not believe that participants in cases are the best people to push for enforcement as it only opens old wounds (as has happened here). If another editor's conduct is egregious enough, it will be noted by other - less involved - editors, who can initiate appropriate action. That advice still stands and I urge you to follow it.”

I should reiterate what my reason is for caring about this: even though Mathsci has mostly left me alone since his attempt to get me site-banned in February, his e-mail to me on June 30th makes it as clear as possible that this is only a temporary respite from him until I attempt to appeal my topic ban. Therefore, it is almost certain that in the future I’ll once again have to put up with the behavior he’s currently directing at Miradre, unless something is done to stop it. It would be beneficial to the community if Mathsci could somehow be encouraged to stop defying the instructions he was given by Roger Davies, and go back to making useful edits on math and music articles. I don’t have a strong opinion about how that should be accomplished, but I think admins should consider the suggestion that Ludwigs2 made in the amendment thread linked above: that Mathsci be placed under a restriction that disallows him from commenting on the behavior of other editors.

Update 8/16: Can any admins see the edit summary in this diff? This edit summary was the most recent example of outing from Mathsci, but it’s apparently been oversighted now. I saw what the edit summary said before it got overisghted, but I’m assuming that I shouldn’t repeat it here, because the whole point of content being oversighted is to make it not visible anymore. If any admins can access this edit summary, I think it’s Mathsci’s most blatant policy violation in this thread—although the fact that it’s been oversighted probably makes that obvious, since oversight isn’t used for run-of-the-mill personal attacks.

Response to EdJohnston: It was a request for clarification, not a formal motion, and it's here. In other words, an actual modification wasn’t necessy, because ArbCom decided that my topic ban hadn’t been intended to extend to AE in the first place. When Ferahgo’s and my topic bans were extended by you and Timothy Canens in this thread, the extension made a specific exception for AE because of this request for clarification. The instruction to not post about others’ behavior at AE was listed under the heading “The following is advice, and it is not compulsory”. The diff of where you included this exception is here. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments: As I said above, I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about the quality of Miradre’s content editing, and it may be that there are some legitimate POV problems with it. However, it’s important to understand that this isn’t just an issue of Mathsci following Miradre from one article to another. What makes this a problem is that it’s being combined with other types of behavior that can also be considered harassment, such as restoring his deleted comments in Miradre’s user talk, trying to intimidate Miradre by posting as personal information about him, and responding with incivility when Miradre asks Mathsci to respect his privacy. These are the specific things that cause Mathsci’s behavior to rise to the level of what I consider harassment, although it certainly makes it worse that there doesn’t appear to be anywhere on Wikipeda that Miradre can go to escape from this.

I'm kind of amazed by how often I see the attitude that some other editors are displaying here, which I think is best summarized as “Incivility and attempted outing are okay when the editor doing them is right about content.” Is there a policy that says this that I don’t know about? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Slrubenstein

I won't comments specifically on the R&I arbitration. However, I have yet to see Mirardre make a well-researched NPOV contribution to an article. I do not think Mirardre fits the bill of "single-purpose editor" but she is one step away. At the Race and Intelligence article, it turned out that the most persistent arguments that blacks are inherently inferior to whites in intelligence came from people promoting evolutionary psychology, which took Mirardre to EP articles. Then it emerged that one of the established academic disciplines most critical of EP is anthropology, which took Mirardre to Anthropology articles. I just spent the past few days undoing Mirardre's tendentious edits to various anthropology articles (in short: Mirardre found one journal article that had a comment to it that encouraged dialogue between anthropology between EP and anthropology. On the basis of this comment alone, EP added a whole new section to each article on the importance of EP within anthropology.[113] Do I have to tell you how many peer-review articles are published on anthropology each year? Imagine if, for each article, we created a new section in the encyclopedia article! And Mirardre was not even drawing on the article, but on a comment to an article. Note: academics do not list such comments on their CVs because they are not peer-reviewed (whether Mirardre doesn't know this fact or knows it but disregards it, either way it suggests she is not qualified to edit on academic topics. I deleted the addition because it gave undue weight to a fringe view, and from an inappropriate source.

The really troubling thing is this: the article itself was an interesting article on the nature-culture divide, and was accompanied by several comments. I pointed out to Miradre that there are a number of other articles on this theme, and that she could draw on these different articles and write a very informative and appropriate section on emerging new approaches to nature-culture in anthropology.[114] I was trying to take Mirardre's edit, and make a good-faith effort to consider what kind of work would lead to a genuinely positive edit, and give Mirardre constructive feedback. Mirardre just changed topics.

Mirardre then went on to argu that a whole chapter of a current textbook on cultural anthropology is about EP.[115] Again, my concern was, how to turn a source into an imporovement to our article, and I asked Mirardre to summarize the chapter. Mirardre became evasive, and refused to discuss the contents of the chapter, insisting that the important point is that there is a whole chapter.Well, it turns out that is just a lie. MathSci took the time to verify Mirardre's claim and discovered that there is no such chapter.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cultural_anthropology&diff=prev&oldid=443685189 As Matchsci demonstrated, the topic occupied two pages in a 450 page book.[116] Then Maunus found the textbook, read it, and discovered that the textbook "describes EP as a discipline that 'impinges on cultural anthropology.'"[117]

From this, we can see the following:

Mirardre does not have the reading comprehension level of a college student (the audeicne for the textbook)
Mirardre misrepresents sources in order to promote Mirardre's views
Mirardre gets upset when other editors actually know more than her

I admit that this discussion on the surface is not about race and intelligence, but if you go back to the attempted mediation at R&I by Ludwigs, and subsequent arguments there, anthropology was consistently deprecated by advocates of EP in scholarly debates over race and intelligence.

A final comment on MathSci, whose editing has been impugned. It is true that MathScie has written a great many articles for WP, all impeccably sourced and well-written. It is true that he does not write as many new articles any more. I do not either. That is because my job requires m to write articles for which I will get credit, and WP does not count. I cannot speak for MathSci but I think a minimum requirement for an editor of an encyclopedia is the ability to comprehend that volunteer editors have more pressing and time-consuming obligations that mean they contribute erratically. We must judge MathSci not by the frequency of his edits by by their quality. I just went into some detail about an exchange on a talk page because this is the kind of contribution Captain Occam deprecates. Yet here we see that MathSci's contribution was exemplary and in fact just the kind of talk page contribution WP depends if it is to exist: Matchsci provided the evidence that Mirardre lied about there being a whole chapter on EP; MathSci provided the evidence that Mirardre was violating WEIGHT; along with Maunus MathSci demonstrated that Mirardre misrepresented the source. Were Mirardre left to her own devices we would have articles with lots of sources - but the articles would be poorly written, misrepresent the sources, even lie about them, and misrepresent scholarly debates. I have tried to work collaboratively with Mirardre and Mirardre has shown no interest in real research. Until Mirardre is banned, someone will have to check every source she cites, and correct her mistakes. This is a takes MathSci has assumed. He (and Maunus) deserves our praise and thanks for this Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Itsmejudith

I don't have much time to edit right now, but would just like to say in reference to comments above that Maunus and SlRubenstein are real experts in social science topics, while Miradre, as far as I can see actually is working like an SPA. His/her level of English is poor too, so when s/he adds large amounts of content, other people have to clean up afterwards. There seems to be a lack of understanding of how to summarise from academic texts, as opposed to direct quoting. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Maunus

I would like to say that given Miradre's past and current behavior it is fully justified, indeed necessarry that editors who are aware of his history review his edits to almost any page that he might edit. He is clearly agenda driven in the large majority of his edits - wikipedia cannot afford to let that go unsupervised. There is a difference between hounding and actually watching out for potential content problems based on documented experience with certain editors editing patterns. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by AndyTheGrump

I'd like to second Maunus's comments. I'm not going to suggest that any of us can ever approach Wikipedia with a truly neutral POV (I don't believe that such a thing exists), but I think that Miradre not only edits in such a way at to push a particular POV beyond any acceptable limits, but that also, from the evidence offered, actually goes out of his/her way to find ways to do so, knowing that this will provoke a response. Frankly, I see no way that this attitude can be seen as compatible with Wikipedia's objectives. If Miradre wishes to change public opinion, and/or the opinions of academia regarding issues of race, heredity, and related issues, fine - that is his/her right - just not here, and not in the belligerent manner exhibited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Miradre writes above: "Currently one focus for me is improving Wikipedia's articles on evolutionary psychology subjects which also include the application in anthropology. That is a sensitive subject for some anthropologists who reject evolutionary psychology". Given that almost all anthropologists 'reject evolutionary psychology' (or does Miradre have evidence to the contrary?), such 'improvements' are nothing of the kind - they are instead attempts to apply undue weight to theories of little relevance to the topic in question. This is further evidence of Miradre's endless POV pushing and general combative attitude. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now Miradre responds by claiming to have 'cited evidence' in Talk:Cultural anthropology regarding the significance of evolutionary psychology to the subject. Fine. Except that the 'evidence' turned out to be almost entirely based on misrepresentation of the sources - again proving precisely the point I made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Slrubenstein is another anthropologist ideologically opposed to evolutionary psychology". And yet again, Miradre insinuates that any attempt to point out that the overwhelming consensus within cultural/social anthropology is that evolutionary psychology is of limited significance to the subject is based on 'ideology' - a highly dubious proposition, entirely lacking evidence. Anyone remotely familiar with the often-heated discourse within social/cultural anthropology will find the proposition that there is a common ideology laughable. Still, insinuations of bias are easy to make, and have the advantage that you don't have to offer evidence. Not directly related to this AR/E discussion, of course, except in that it may indicate why any topic ban is going to fail as long as Miradre persists with this battleground mentality and endless search for new articles to promote an ideologically motivated (yeah, I can do it too...) biological determinist perspective in subjects where such perspectives are fringe, if not entirely irrelevant.AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a response to Memills (below): are you going to offer any evidence to back up your suggestions that those commenting here have 'another agenda', or are you just going to leave it hanging, like the vacuous insinuation it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And while Memills is at it, what the heck is an 'anti-biological POV'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Memills

The concept of a "construct" has a long history in science, long before Gould. Nor is it limited to studies of intelligence; the term "construct" is used in many, if not most, areas of science. See the relevant WP article: constructs. That several editors above think that it only applies to intelligence is rather shocking. Rather, given the very strong anti-biological POVs of these editors, I suspect another agenda.

The editors criticizing Miradre fail to note that there was previous discussion on the Talk page about moving the "reification fallacy" subsection, as well as other sections, and was initiated by several other editors (not Miradre), (see here and here). The rationale for the move was that many of the criticisms of evolutionary psychology are actually more germane to the nature vs. nurture page than to evolutionary psychology in particular. The editors above who label evolutionary psychology as "genetic determinism," and/or who suggest that editors who are trying to accurately describe evolutionary psychology are "promoting" it, betray a strong anti-biological POV.

The attempt to associate moving the "reification fallacy" subsection with the topic of intelligence (to snag Miradre) is a red herring. It seems to me to be a POV-motivated attempt to harass and silence an editor with whom they philosophically disagree. Memills (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Boothello

It's a shame that more uninvolved people haven't shown up to offer their opinion on Miradre's editing. So far everyone criticizing him seem to be R&I regulars who followed him to other topics after he was topic banned (well, except for Itsmejudith who was recruited by Mathsci specifically to oppose Miradre [118]). We could get a clearer picture about whether Miradre's editing has been a problem if some of the editors active on other articles he edits (like, from the looks of it, psychology and public broadcasting etc) would post, instead of just the core group of editors who have historically opposed him on R&I and then followed him elsewhere.

For the record, I think there are some issues with Miradre's editing. The biggest one I've seen is his long, circular, and often off-topic arguments with other editors (Mathsci in particular) on talk pages. See a recent typical example of this here. This began as a question of whether Memills has a COI by commenting here as Mathsci claimed and then removed. This quickly devolved into an argument about whether it was a personal attack when Mathsci said that Miradre's arguments "are like those of a small child." Two uninvolved editors, Olyeller21 and Atama, complained there about how Miradre and Mathsci tend to waste other editors' time with this endless bickering.

I think Mathsci is more at fault here than Miradre. In my own experience I've seen that it is possible to resolve content disputes with Miradre, it just takes some effort and patience. On the other hand I've found that reasoned discussion with Mathsci is often impossible. Mathsci does not comment on the talk pages of R&I articles, apparently because he has promised ArbCom not to, so whenever he disagrees with one of my edits he responds with threats and accusations in my user talk.

Some examples of Mathsci accusing me of colluding with other editors: [119] [120] Note his comment "This strategy of tracking a single editor is ill-advised" yet he has no problem doing the same thing to Miradre.

Some examples of Mathsci commenting to threaten me with sanctions: [121] [122]

Some examples of Mathsci continuing to comment in my user talk after I asked him to stop: [123] [124]

Two things worth noting here. First is the sheer quantity of this: nearly half of all revisions to my talk page are from Mathsci. Secondly, this is literally the entirety of my interaction with him. Never have I interacted with him on talk pages or articles, I have no prior history with him, and did not even know who he was until he started threatening me in my user talk. Based on my experience and observation, Mathsci has virtually no interest in collaborative discussions about content. When he disagrees with anyone's edits, he generally just resorts to belittlement, accusations, and threats.Boothello (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on disruption of this request by ipsocks of Mikemikev

collapsed for readability

These comments originally followed Captain Occam's comments about two edit summaries removed by oversight.

(No apologies for posting here.) This edit summary was removed by oversight as a result of an email request by me. It was Fred Bauder who responded to my request. Prior to that I made a request to LHVU and several arbitrators, who are completely aware of this situation. In the meantime an antisemitic rant has been deleted on the user page [125] of an ipsock of the same editor, Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). At present a complete range of IPs has been blocked for a month at Imperial College, London as a result of these and similar edits by Mikemikev. In view of his postings from his account at that university, which incited racial hatred, completely contrary to the conditions of use of such university accounts (and also the laws in the United Kingdom), it is possible that an official complaint is lodged with the computer services at ICL. Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you’re saying that you asked Fred Bauder to oversight your own edit summary? (Anyone who looks at this diff can see that the edit summary in question was from you, not from Mikemikev.) What makes this even stranger is that it was oversighted immediately after I asked someone else to oversight it. I hope you won’t mind me checking with the relevant people to verify this. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent an email to oversight. There were two OTRS tickets, 2011081210004067 and 2011081210004625. Fred Bauder wrote a reply to me in the first official response: "I suppressed two edit comments as disclosures of personal information. Sincerely, Fred Bauder." (I had previously contacted individually LHVU, Newyorkbrad, Elen of the Roads and Casliber.) That is the normal process. Mikemikev's real life name is not a secret since he identified himself in one of his first edits to wikipedia.[126] Some of his posts on wikipedia and elsewhere (on Stormfront for example) have contained undiluted incitements to racial hatred. That is why he is community banned. Here is a selection of what he has recently written on video internet sites.[127] Mathsci (talk) 17:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that diff you gave above there is certainly no clear evidence that the person named in that diff is the IP editor or if he is that he wants his identity outed to the world. You also makes accusations that can have very serious real-world consequences. There is certainly no excuse for the outing of your identity, whoever is doing it, but that does not justify you on dubious grounds outing other people with accusations than have potential serious consequences.Miradre (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have complaints of any sort about the rights of Mikemikev and the ipsocks that he uses, I suggest you address those complaints directly to checkusers and oversighters (including members of ArbCom) who help keep the sockpuppets accounts of this highly problematic user under control. At the moment, you seem to be condoning accounts that have been blocked as confirmed sockpuppets of Mikemikev. Please don't do that, even if it is unintentional, as it is highly offensive. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no complaints regarding the block of the ipsocks and I do not support the actions they have done. But in effect naming a specific person based on that dubious diff, and in addition making serious accusations that may have real-world consequences against that named person, do is very offensive. Especially strange considering your own complaints regarding outing. Miradre (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember if there was more than one request, but I thought the request by Mathsci to suppress that inappropriate edit summary was righteous, so did it. Protecting an editor is not a proper reason for suppression; there were other appropriate reasons. Most of the arbitrators can view it and discuss it, if need be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I sent the request twice, because I left out a diff in the first email. Mikemikev is the only user who has used that range of IPs for editing wikipedia. Using another IP in the range he had posted a racist attack page, now deleted at my request. The whole range has been blocked for one month by HelloAnnyong. 19:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There were no dubious diffs; the whole range of the first IP who posted here was blocked following an SPI report for Mikemikev. The two ranges of IPs 146.179.212.* and 146.179.213.* from Imperial College, London have been used exclusively by Mikemikev for editing wikipedia and, from August 2010, for evading his ArbCom ban/community ban. He has disrupted this page recently with his trademark attacks ("hysterical faggotry"/"faggotry"). Some of the postings from the second range of IPs just used contain his signature.[128] This is another typical posting from that range.[129] Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The IP range was not my point. The point being that you have above (in your 17:28, 16 August 2011 edit) in effect named a specific living person as being responsible on very dubious grounds. Based on that diff you gave there is certainly no clear evidence that the person named in that diff is the IP editor or if he is that he wants his identity outed to the world. It may well be someone unrelated (or an acquaintance) to the named person and who dislikes that university who made that edit. The story may also just be a form of subtle vandalism. In addition, you makes serious accusations against this named person which may have serious real-life consequences. Especially strange considering your own complaints regarding outing.Miradre (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic long-term abuse of wikipedia—the posting of racist comments and attacks—could result in an official complaint from WMF. That is certainly within policy. Mikemikev self-identified on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already stated, there was certainly no clear self-identification. Again, I find is strange considering your own complaints regarding outing that you yourself in effect name others on very dubious grounds and in addition with accusations with possibly serious real-life consequences. Miradre (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion that people at Imperial College, London are "impersonating Mikemikev" is not even vaguely probable since all the editing is similar. Sockpuppet investigations do not work in that way, nor does WP:DUCK. Your concerns about an editor who systemastically uses wikipedia for inciting racial hatred seem disingenuous. A little while back I asked Newyorkbrad in private about the problem posed by Mikemikev's sockpuppetry and I believe that that matter is still under discussion. Thanks,Mathsci (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe he can get Yahweh to come and deal with the wicked racist goyim. 146.179.213.110 (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Is this one of those ICL people "impersonating Mikemikev", or is it possibly the real thing? Mathsci (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do no misrepresent me. The point being that you have on dubious grounds in effect named a specific living person as being responsible. Miradre (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The real life identity of Mikemikev is known to arbitrators. You have chosen to ignore the antisemitic remarks above. Instead you appear to be continuing to attack me in a disingenuous way. Please see WP:STICK. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathsci, This is my own section of this thread, not yours. You shouldn’t have commented here instead of in your own section to begin with, and I especially don’t want you using my section as a place to argue with Miradre about Mikemikev socks. If you don’t stop commenting here, I’m going to move this entire thread (beginning with your first reply to me) up to your own section above, which is where it should have been in the first place. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules about subthreads here. I have already made a private complaint to three arbitrators about your comments above. Like Miradre, please see WP:STICK. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 10:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you apparently aren't willing to stop posting in my section. At AE, everyone has the right to move comments in their section by another editor to that editor's own section, so I'm doing that now. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Miradre

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I hope that User:Captain Occam can supply a diff to the place where Arbcom modified his ban to allow him to comment at Arbitration Enforcement in R&I requests where his own edits have not been mentioned. This Arbcom action would, I assume, have been a formal motion. Lacking such evidence, I urge him to cease commenting here. The only edits being reviewed in this AE are those of Miradre and possibly Mathsci. (Mathsci's own edits are subject to review since he is the submitter). EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, per the Captain's response, I agree that his previous topic ban allows him to comment at AE. Should the admins here decide that his posts are not helpful, they might comment on that or take action on that when this report closes. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to come here to look over this request for enforcement. I don't normally get involved in arbitration enforcement, but this request has sat for weeks without any action. I'm uninvolved and an administrator, so I figured that I might as well give this a shot.

There is a lot of discussion about this topic, but I think I can cut it down simply. Essentially, Miradre has been involved in the Criticism of evolutionary psychology article, and has edited the article as recently as a week ago. He is currently topic-banned under the discretionary sanctions proposed at WP:ARBR&I, per 2/0's decision, and the ban will not expire until early October. So the only question that needs to be asked, is whether or not the article in question falls under the ARBR&I ban.

Let me repeat what the actual ban covers, to clear up any misconceptions. The initial arbitration case was titled "Race and Intelligence", but the ban covers "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed".

Looking at the article, it's quite clear that human abilities and behavior are part of the article, specifically psychology itself, the discussion of IQ and personality traits in the "reification" section, the adaptability of human behavioral traits, and so on. In addition, those are intersected with ethnicity quite clearly, there is even a section on Ethnocentricism.

That means that the article clearly falls under the topic ban, and given the clear intention to "push the boudaries" as demonstrated above, I don't see that this is an isolated incident. Therefore, I am blocking Miradre for the maximum of one month, as recommended at WP:ARBR&I#Enforcement of topic-bans by block. -- Atama頭 18:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Vecrumba

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

24 August 2011 Vecrumba's words are clearly commenting directly on myself as an editor, rather than focusing on content. His words all but accuse me of being antagonistic in Baltic topics (as opposed to often presenting a POV which others neglect to add at the beginning); his words also all but accuse me of being a troll (rather than a long-term editor in good standing); his words also all but accuse me of being petty; his words also assume bad faith on my part (although he states he AGF); his words also paint a negative appearance of myself, rather than focusing on content.

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

As per Wikipedia:EEML#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions Vecrumba has been blocked 3 times for breaching this interaction ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Vecrumba's breach of the topic ban is somewhat inflammatory, as it has nothing to do with content, but rather it is a direct personal attack on myself. The comments by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise at Vecrumba's last personal attack on myself are still current it appears (and he was blocked for 3 weeks for that attack).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [130]

Response to Canens: In light of the fact that the article in question was started in 2008, and was seen by way of being a "see also" on Occupation of the Baltic States, there is no interaction breach by my nominating for AfD an article which in good faith I believe is not notable enough for inclusion on WP. Note in everything I have written about the article in question, I have not made a single comment about the editor, but have concentrated purely on content, as per advice given by an arbiter at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Proposed_decision#Potential_problem_with_restrictions -- at no stage was my nomination driven by who created it, but it is concentrated purely upon content. I have even stated on the record that any editor under an interaction ban with myself is welcome to comment on anything and everything, so long as they concentrate on content only, as per advice of Carcaroth.

Given that you are now suggesting a one-week block for myself due to my taking heed of advice given by an arb at an Arbcom case, I will be heading you off at the pass on this block by seeking clarification from the committee itself as to what is and isn't allowed under these interaction bans, and you are more than welcome to make known your opinion there. If it is the opinion of the committee that my nominating an article which doesn't comply with many WP policies for AfD that this is disruptive, then I will take issue with the committee directly due to the interaction bans not being intended to stop editors from editing articles in good faith (as per the committee members own words). --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to both admins (Canens and Ed): I would like you to note that the AfD has seen involvement from other editors who are banned from interacting with me (Vecrumba and Volunteer Marek), so going by your own words they should also be blocked for their involvement in the AfD, seeing as it was started by myself. However, I would not go to AE just for their involvement, so long as content is the only thing being discussed. I don't take the view of issues regarding content being a violation of the interaction ban but if they are, then Volunteer Marek would also be in a more obvious violation with his involvement. However, Vecrumba's involvement was not based on content; instead he chose from the outset to delve into personal attacks on myself, and that is the only reason I have come here. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 01:13, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba

Statement by Vecrumba

My words have nothing to do with TFD or Russavia individually, but who are symptomatic in this case. If civility and good faith are ever going to reign on Wikipedia in the Baltic and Eastern European article space, we can't have editors who misrepresent sources making out Baltic individuals to be Nazis or editors who fulminate over propagandic foreign ministries being the first ones who line up to nominate content for deletion which refers to the Soviet Union occupying the Baltic states. In my view, that is outright WP:HARASSMENT of the editor(s) who created that content. It's not an article deletion nomination in good faith when we all know that it's going to provoke another fist-fight. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. My comments at the AfD can apply only to TFD (Lia Looveer supporting Nazis article content) without the involvement of Russavia. But as Russavia has seen fit to assault me here, I am now applying to both. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD, I regret my personal perception is that your support of the AfD is partisan as you would know very well given past conflicts that we would eventually end up in some sort of dispute resolution. Whatever the spat Russavia has with another editor is not my concern. To avoid such unfortunate perceptions on my part and I suspect that of others in the future, we would all do well not to piss on the content of editors we consider to be our editorial opposition. I don't piss on anyone's Russophile content as I get no satisfaction from stomping on the good efforts of other individuals—I applaud and support all those whose love of their culture and heritage brings them to contribute to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it seems that not all share my sentiments. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanobear, I regret your venom over what you believe are personal attacks by myself against other editors. Russavia's historically anti-Baltic biased editorial position (I can provide diffs) and provocative timing of removing content which is not complimentary to Russia (recent activities) and seeming tit-for-tat leaps into AE requests (and, I ask you, when is the last time I originated one of these to pour gasoline on the fire?) present, to me, an activism which runs counter to our collegial cooperation. We should all consider going to bed early tonight and wake up on a less stressful side of the bed. That you've been completely inactive in the Soviet-Baltic Russian-Baltic sphere of topics but show up in short order to denounce me along the line of your past attacks on my character do not bode well for our moving on from past conflict. As for your diffs of me "attacking" you, I will simply start filing arbitration enforcement requests instead of simply complaining, as this seems to be a contest about who can eliminate who for how long having nothing to do with any postive aspect of Wikipedia. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba

Vecrumba implies that Russavia initiated an AfD for partisan reasons. The comments are unhelpful and disruptive to the AfD. TFD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Nanobear

Starting an AfD about an article falls into the article space, not interaction space. Neither Russavia nor Tammsalu are subjects of the AfD. It is no personalization in itself and not covered by an interaction ban. Please see Wikipedia:Interaction_ban#Interaction_ban. Nanobear (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to arbitrator Carcharoth, commenting on content is allowed: please see here. And that's exactly what Russavia did when he initiated the AfD. Nanobear (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be sent to ArbCom for a clear clarification (ha!), because I've seen two admins disagree here on what an IBAN should or shouldn't allow. The core issue is how much AGF should go into "I didn't know I was reverting/AfDing stuff added by someone with whom interaction is prohibited", and what should be done in the inevitable cases when it does happen: revert or allow content discussion between the ibanned parties? FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So talking about content previously edited by Tammsalu is a violation of interaction ban? This seems to be a completely different opinion that what we currently have in our policy. The policy specifically allows content edits. Russavia was only discussing content - which is allowed - until Vecrumba launched an extremely offensive personal attack against him (not the first time Vecrumba has made such attacks). The only correct thing to do is to then report the attacker on this noticeboard, which is what Russavia did. It seems that you wish to ban Russavia for doing everything correctly. This seems to be completely at odds with current policy. Nanobear (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Vecrumba's incivility and personal attacks against editors

After Vecrumba's last personal attack on Russavia (for which he was blocked for 3 weeks), and because Vecrumba is now continuing such attacks, it seems clear that a longer block is now in order for him. This is especially the case since Vecrumba's defence of his attack (see his section above) is an attempt to deflect from the fact that the personal attacks were clearly directed against Russavia.

If the personal attack really wasn't directed against Russavia, but against TFD (which seems unlikely), like Vecrumba claims, then this only demonstrates that Vecrumba has a major problem staying civil in the EE topic area. It looks like Vecrumba deems it necessary to attack all editors instead of commenting on content only, as Russavia notes above. In this case, discretionary sanctions of WP:DIGWUREN apply, and given Vecrumba's battlefield mentality a complete block from the EE area seems now warranted.

I too have been the target of Vecrumba's attacks on many occasions. Two recent examples are: [131][132]. In [133] Vecrumba launches an attack against a respected admin (Future Perfect at Sunrise), because the admin dared to block an EEML member. Nanobear (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tammsalu

On the general issue of what constitutes a personal attack, a review of WP:NPA#WHATIS may be helpful, particularly the fourth bullet point "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence". On an abstract level, if a party subject to such an accusation is also under an interaction ban or banned in the past, then such evidence must demonstrably exist. For example if someone said to me something like "I regret you have chosen to revert to your former belligerent conduct." given my block log I really can't claim it was a personal attack, can I. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I'm of the view that Russavia's initiation of that AfD violated their interaction ban with Tammsalu - see my comment here - and Vecrumba's comment violated their interaction ban with Russavia - which is plain. Proposing 1 week blocks for both. T. Canens (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant sidenote: Every time I see myself being referred to as Canens I chuckle a little. It's the present active participle of the Latin verb cano, -ere, meaning "singing". No, it's not a surname. T. Canens (talk) 11:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with T. Canens that one-week blocks of both Russavia and Vecrumba are justified for violating the respective interaction bans: Russavia's with Tammsalu, and Vecrumba's interaction ban with Russavia. The feud between the EEML people and Russavia is not over, and the only restriction still in place which can limit the effects of this feud is the set of interaction bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing the future of these interaction bans with some users. If I can find support for doing something different I'll propose it back here. Please consider keeping the thread open for a couple more days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Banned from editing for 72 hours

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&action=historysubmit&diff=446424381&oldid=446415984

Administrator imposing the sanction: EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

I have seen this appeal, so I don't have to be notified. EdJohnston (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Someone35

2 different people reverted my edits without finish the discussion topic I started inTalk:Qula (it's 3 people now, OhioStandard also reverted it after I was blocked). I asked them not to turn it into an edit war and reply to the topic in Talk:Qula but they refused. In the arbitration request I couldn't say what was my side since I was blocked before I could respond there (the request was written about at 23:00 gmt +2 and I had to go to sleep, I asked the administrator to wait but he didn't wait).

You appear to have called Nableezy an anti-Semite in a Hebrew remark you added at the bottom of this talk page. (See Nableezy's objection here). Your statement is considered to be a personal attack. I suggest that you remove your comment. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's what i did, although there's a reason i written this in hebrew, it was not intended for him but for hebrew speakers. if he chooses to stalk me then it's his problem. can you please add this explanation for me in the block appeal request? for some reason i don't have the right to comment there-- Someone35 (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have the courage to tell the truth. -asad (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Hebrew but I knew the meaning of what Someone35 wrote within 60 seconds of seeing it. Frankly I think Someone35's block should be extended. He/she simply doesn't seem to get it. Zero^talk 00:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course he does not get it. The guy has only received demands to self-revert and templates. Maybe the admins sanctioning here should go read ARBPIA: "...Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Where else is more appropriate to a relatively new editor new to the topic area? A template is not sufficient. Furthermore, we should understand why the guy is upset. He feels that he is getting mobbed by a bunch of edit warring POV pushers. I am not going to comment on if I agree or not. He then got a block that was 2-2.5 days longer than needed to stop the disruption. A 12hr block under the conditions of the 1/rr amendment (no help words of advice or warnings required) would have done the trick. So how about an admin actually goes and starts a discussion with the guy instead of promoting an atmosphere that a new editor can easily assume is wikilawyering?Cptnono (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have tried for you guys.[134] There are a couple admins who would have worded it much better. Obviously they are not around. Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get him to behave properly, good for you. Meanwhile, the fact remains that he explicitly refused to obey policy after it was pointed out to him, and then he went on to libel another editor. Neither action is excused by inexperience. Zero^talk 10:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But the banhammer laid down by T.C is, IMO, rather draconian considering the nature of his violations. I have never seen such a punishment before - an indefinite ban that can only be petitioned once every three months? COMPETENCE is not a policy or guideline. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't have happened if he acknowledged fault and undertook to behave better. But to this date he has only claimed to have done nothing wrong and that the rules are stupid. IMO that left TC with no option and I agree with his rationale. Zero^talk 23:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. But I don't understand the petition process. Is there a precedent for this? I get the time-out process but this seems overtly humiliating, especially for such a young editor and first time offender. Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

The original block which is being appealed was imposed per WP:AE#Someone35. That thread is still visible above. The other page you might want to look at when reviewing this is User talk:Someone35. This editor seems to have made a plain 1RR violation on an I/P article. Generally these can be closed quickly with no action if the user agrees to self-revert. In this case, the user refused to self-revert as shown by the diffs supplied in the report. It is generally not persuasive to blame others if you find yourself committing a 1RR. The nature of a 1RR is that it's easy to recognize a violation, and a long discussion at AE should not be needed. Those who disagree with the block argue that Someone35 is a newcomer and ought to be counselled. I did not find this argument convincing. One appropriate final warning ought to be sufficient. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of his talk page, Someone35 has added a new section in which he asks Nableezy, 'Who pays you and where do you live?' EdJohnston (talk) 01:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

In the last section on Someone35's talk page, there is a conversation between Chesdovi and the user about another article, Palestinian rabbis. Included in that exchange is the following Hebrew from the user: Template:Rtl-lang. The translation of that last question is "who calls it that except for anti-Semites like Nableezy?" I dont appreciate such an outrageous charge being leveled against me, in any language, and as such I request that the block not be rescinded but instead extended. nableezy - 16:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Malik Shabazz

"I'll call other editors antisemites in languages I don't think they can read, and in places I don't expect them to read." That's certainly a novel interpretation of WP:NPA. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikifan: This sort of open-ended topic ban, which may be appealed every few months, has been meted out in disputes related to Eastern and Central Europe. The admins who have been adjudicating ARBPIA enforcement have been warning for months that it was coming to this area too. Someone35 just happens to be the first editor (as far as I know) to get these sanctions in the Israel–Palestine topic area. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't know that. I've just never seen this before. Maybe someone could mentor Someone? I hope this community ban doesn't deter young editors from contributing. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35

Ed, as this is the editor's first block, would it be within your own discretion to lessen the block to a lesser time---3 days does seem a bit too long for a first offence---perhaps make it 24 hours, albeit with a warning that future infractions will lead to longer blocks as per admin discretion. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 14:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Nableezy's information, perhaps Canens is correct, a topic ban is quite possibly in order here. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban for a personal attack (first offense again)?

I think editors need to take a step back, let Someone finish out his 72 hour block and request he strike out his statements about Nableezy. This AE would be Nableezy's 3rd for the month of August. AE should be used as a last resort, and IMO the charges are not damning enough to go here. Wikifan^{Be nice} 00:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He deleted that sentence, but immediately added this and [135], which don't look much more friendly. FuFoFuEd (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But users have more rights over their talk pages than on Wikipedia articles. Not sure on the validity of the userbox but edits like these shouldn't lead to topic bans. If Someone starts hounding Nableezy then I could understand. But Nableezy is a a veteran at AE and knows policy so I can understand how a young immature editor might feel victimized. Plenty of more appropriate noticeboards to handle these sorts of behavioral issues. Wikifan^{Be nice} 04:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user was brought to AE because he violated the 1RR and refused to self-revert. He was subsequently blocked. Whether or not you consider that "damning enough" for a block really does not concern me, it very clearly merits a block. Calling another user an anti-Semite is a straightforward personal attack. There are a large number of users I would like to call racists (or much harsher things), but I dont, because we have a policy that forbids such actions. AE is for enforcing arbitration decisions. The Arab-Israeli conflict area is subject to discretionary sanctions as a result of an arbitration decision. This is exactly the place where this belongs. nableezy - 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He violated 1rr and was hit with IMO a heavy block (72 hours?) especially long for a first offense, and yes in spite of warnings. As far as civility goes, independent of arbitration rules. This is a trivial matter Nableezy, suggestions of a topic ban of any length are totally out of proportion to what Someone has said. Wikifan^{Be nice} 07:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt an issue of civility. The user was complaining that another user used the words "Palestinian Talmud" in reference to Jerusalem Talmud, a topic that I have both no knowledge of and no interest in. But to underline his or her point, this user thinks it is somehow acceptable to say that only "anti-Semites like Nableezy" refer to it as the "Palestinian Talmud", forgetting that the person who actually referred to it as the Palestinian Talmud is a Jewish Zionist who, while not the most diametrically opposed user to me in terms of political views, has never, as far as I can tell, been accused of antisemitism by anybody. This isnt an issue of civility, this child thinks it is acceptable to write on the internet that a person is an anti-Semite without any evidence at all, in fact, with what appears to be the exact opposite of evidence. You think thats cool? You want to ask me "u mad bro?" But the user did remove the comment, I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here. nableezy - 08:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue of civility here in the overall scheme of things. Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately. if this editor is only 14 years old perhaps also contact their guardian as well, so that they can have their arse smacked and sent to their room with no dinner lol. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me Nableezy, is it my problem that you choose to Google translate things I was telling Chesdovi? Do you really think there was no reason I wrote that in HEBREW? If you choose to read what you're not supposed to read (like other people's talk pages in other languages...) you have no right to complain about what you find there. If I wanted to personally offend you then I would just write you in English/Arabic on YOUR talk page and call you an anti semite-- Someone35 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you get it. Personal attacks are not allowed in any language, and they are considered to be personal attacks even if you are not intending for the one you are attacking to read it. I didn't make the policies for WP, but I chose to abide by them to the best of my ability. If you don't want to abide by them, you are free to edit else where (like your website). -asad (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't a personal attack. Again, if I wanted to insult him then I could just tell him that on his talk page-- Someone35 (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attacks are not allowed in any language, and they are considered to be personal attacks even if you are not intending for the one you are attacking to read it." -asad (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Someone35

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

I find no merit in this appeal. The violation is plain and the sanction is well within admin discretion. If the translation posted by Nableezy is correct, moreover, I think a topic ban is in order. T. Canens (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with T. Canens on the first count; neutral on the second. I should mention that Google translate confirms the translation (although of course with some grammar differences.) KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this. The block has expired, so the matter is now moot, but in any event the appeal clearly did not succeed. Further, I find that Someone35 has demonstrated a clear inability to comply with the fundamental behavioral guidelines of Wikipedia. As the Arbitration Committee recently explained:

Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.
The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".
The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".
Wikipedia's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such as personal attacks and edit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards. The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere.

I find it particularly disturbing that, despite multiple editors and administrators pointing out to them that calling a fellow editor an anti-Semite is an unacceptable personal attack, and despite the knowledge that a topic ban is being considered for this conduct, Someone35 continues to insist that it was not a personal attack, and indeed that it was the attacked editor's fault for noticing it in the first place.

Not so. As WP:NPA points out, "insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". That the attack was written in a language other than English is irrelevant.

Reviewing the behavior of Someone35 in this thread and elsewhere leaves me convinced that they will not be a constructive presence in this topic area, which is already rife with interpersonal conflicts. To the extent that Someone35's conduct is due to simple inexperience rather than knowing violations of the standards of behavior, I am of the view that competence is required for editing in this topic area. As the Committee noted in the discretionary sanctions provision for this topic area:

Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions. (emphasis added)

My conclusion is that until Someone35 can demonstrate that they are willing and able to "conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism" expected of editors, they should not be allowed to edit in this topic area or its closely related topics. Accordingly, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, Someone35 (talk · contribs) is banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Middle East, broadly construed across all namespaces, for a period of no less than 3 months. After 3 months, and every 3 months thereafter, they may apply to have the ban reviewed at WP:AE. Further, Someone35 may make one appeal to AE at any time within the next 3 months challenging this decision. They may also appeal to the Arbitration Committee at any time. The ban will stay in place until it is lifted on appeal at AE or by the Arbitration Committee. T. Canens (talk) 09:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chesdovi

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Chesdovi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: asad (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:Topic_ban#Enforcement

Chesdovi has started a talk page section at Joseph's Tomb reopening the controversial matter of of the Tomb's name in Arabic

Recent history of Joseph's Tomb's talk page

Chesdovi received a one-year topic ban for articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict under WP:ARBPIA

Topic Banned on 29 June 2011 by Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For people not familiar with the subject, I will try to lay it down as clearly and neutrally as possible- Joseph's Tomb is venerated by Israelis as being the burial site of the prophet Joseph and by Palestinians as being the tomb of a local Muslim cleric. Chesdovi proposing to insert the term of "en-Nabi" (which is the Arabic word for prophet) would be pushing the POV of Israelis who believe it is the site of their prophet and suppressing the Palestinian POV that it is a burial site of a local Muslim cleric. Chesdovi is familiar with the conflict as is noted by this topic he opened on my talk page a while back. He is also well aware of the BBC source that asserts the Muslim belief it is the burial site of a local cleric.

Regardless of who is right or wrong in the matter, it is clear that there is enough conflict on the matter (see an earlier topic on the article's talk page) that it would fall under Chesdovi's topic ban of being restricted to articles "broadly construed" as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I also requested that Chesdovi strikethrough his comments on the talk page, but he declined. I went on to further elaborate on why I feel it is a topic ban violation and he felt he was not in violation of his topic ban and therefore was not obliged to strikethrough his comments.

~~On a sub-note, Chesdovi was also clearly informed on the scope of his topic ban here. -asad (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Of course Chesdovi thinks he hasn't violated any sort of topic ban when it seems the only sources he thinks exists on the matter play to his POV regarding the Arabic naming. It would be hard to see a conflict of the nature of this one with that kind of tunnel vision. The fact of the matter remains (which is backed up by numerous sources) - Israelis believe that it is the tomb of the their prophet, Palestinians believe it is the tomb of a local Muslim cleric -- Chesdovi would therefore be pushing the Israeli POV into the Arabic name, which is obviously suppose to represent the Palestinian POV. I can in no way determine what the intentions of Chesdovi are, but all I know is that there is a I-P conflict and Chesdovi's proposals play to one side of it. -asad (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further thought to the matter, I would like to withdrawal my complaint. I am from the same school of understanding as Chesdovi, that the content is not related to the conflict so it would not fall under the scope of his topic ban. My original thoughts as to filing the complaint was that Chesdovi was trying to insert an Israeli POV into the Arabic translation of the article's name. But seeing Chesdovi's dedication to the subject, and by his recent comments here and on the article's talk page, I see that my original understanding was ill-founded and that he was not intending to net this into the conflict, rather try to explain what he thinks is the proper work (how ever much I bitterly disagree with it. I know the subject may have now become whether or not topic-banned editors are allowed to be involved with any article that even barely relates to the conflict, but, again my original thoughts on the matter was that Chesdovi was trying to bring an Israeli POV into the matter, not that he was just simply commenting on an article that is related to the conflict in some way shape or form. -asad (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[136]

Discussion concerning Chesdovi

Statement by Chesdovi

I did not edit on the conflict. Asad is shrewdly making the leap, linking an innocent attempt to provide the original authentic name, to the conflict area. Please note that it was myself who brought Joseph’s Tomb up to GA status and I know which parts of that article are related to the conflict. Discussing the Arabic name for the tomb does not violate my ban. My banning Admin has made it clear that I am within my rights to make such edits. It is so wrong of Asad to accuse me of stoking passions on the A/I conflict by trying to whitewash the claims by some that it is the tomb of the sheikh! This point is clearly mentioned in the lead. Further I added a whole section about the confusion over competing shrine. Further, the en-Nabi name is already used and sourced in the article itself: ”By the mid 19th-century, Muslims had recognised the site as housing the tomb of the biblical Joseph and called it "Qabr en-Nabi Yūsuf"”. This term produced over 250,000 search results! Asad says he will "try to lay it down as clearly and neutrally." From what I can see, he has not clarified my position on the matter at all. He in fact is only asserting erroneously that I am intent on inserting an Israeli POV which is not my position at all. Yet he fails to mention this. I can back this up by the fact that I have not tried to remove the word “Ḥā'iṭ Al-Burāq” from Wailing Wall, which translates into Arabic as el-Mabka. Asad has made it clear that he has an issue with this (Note User:Nableezy did not as he himself changed the Arabic [137]). Note further that User:Nableezy is also of the opinion that such a discussion does not violate my ban: [138], but retracted after Asad made know his supposed link. In light of this I have made crystal clear I am willing to work together to sort this out. But of course he is having none of this. Also note that in the AE report he mentioned above, Asad used a false date in his attempt to get me banned. When mentioning this issue he falsely claim the relevant edit took place on 28/6/2011, when it in fact took place 2 months before that. Further, the banning Admin stated that "I will not evaluate the third diff as I'm unfamiliar with Arabic." So there we have it: Asad alone has concocted this Arabic naming edit to be associated with the conflict and therefore the ban. I have not violated my ban. Chesdovi (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser's post is littered with untruths and I am not going to revist that dispute here. Chesdovi (talk) 11:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have made it so clear I cannot understand why Asad continues to think I do not accept that some Palestinians think a sheikh is buried there. Asad is trying to frame my edit as relating to the conflict. He can repeat as many times as he likes his views on the matter, it will make no difference. I have already explained that his take on the full Arabic name is his alone and I am willing to reach a compromise about how to present both names. Why he continues to assert otherwise escapes me. This article contains numerous sources affirming that some Moslems believe the biblical prophet lies buried there. There is therefore no reason whatsoever to reject the Arabic name for this. It is as simple as that. Chesdovi (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono: If Cptnono’s view has any merits in the eyes of others, this issue needs to be clarified. So many articles can be linked to the conflict, what would the limit be? Are all Holocaust articles banned because some are of the view it lead to the creation of Israel? Are article on medieval Jews such as Nathan of Gaza also out, as edits there could bolster the Israeli claim to Gaza? What about 9/11 – Israel is mentioned in the lead? Do mere naming conventions, such as at Joseph’s Tomb, also contravene such a ban as it can be seen as a political ploy? The wording of the ban does not say "banned from articles which "include" the topic area", but rather says "banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict," i.e. the actual articles themselves have to be related to the conflict, e.g. Hebron massacre and Deir Yassin massacre which only exist because of the conflict. Joseph's tomb was around long before the A/I conflict, as was Jerusalem, Hebron, etc. That these articles now include content related to the conflict, that is covered when the ban states: "and other "content related" to the Arab-Israeli conflict", so I stand with User:T. Canens who stated that if "your edits do not relate to the conflict in any way" then articles such as those that deal with Israel/Arab but not related directly to the Arab-Israeli conflict, such as cities, elections, internal affairs, can be edited under the ban. The issue here was that my edit was seen to be under "content related" in a permissable article, while I, and others, did not accept that connection, even though I was aware that Asad did. I will not however be held to account when the concern is that of a sole sensitive editor I feel is making a leap to connect edits to the conflict when it does not necesarrily relate to it. Chesdovi (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston: If the ARBPIA template his to have any value in regard to topic bans (which it does not currently mention on the template), it has to be administered in an authoritative fashion, not just randomly, by whim. Non-Admin’s, such as SD, have added the template to many pages she thought were related. They may be, but who is she to decide? What may be obvious to some, may not be so to others. Chesdovi (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser continues unabated with his edit-warring, now the subject of DRN. He has removed a sourced classification that Isaac ben Samuel of Acre was Palestinian, claiming that it is POV and non-consensus, when in fact the term is a widely used in RS from all political camps and has gained consensus at Afd! Chesdovi (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Chesdovi

Comment by Debresser (talk · contribs)

Chesdovi has recently created categories like Category:16th-century Palestinian rabbis and several other "Palestinian" categories. When these categories were challenged by two authors, I one of them, on his talkpage, he continued adding them to articles rather than first gain consensus for their use. When opposition became fierce, he opened an Rfc on that category's talkpage, which showed that many editors oppose his categories, for various reasons. The main reason mentioned by many is the ambiguity of the word "Palestinian", which in our days first and foremost refers to the Palestinian nationality or ethnicity. Which is also how all of this connects to WP:ARBPIA. In the end the category was deleted at Cfd, with a closing commentary that said "I could not find one editor that took up the position that User:Chesdovi embraces". He then took it unsuccessfully to Drv. Then he created the article Palestinian rabbis, which has survived the Afd I opened, even though the closing commentary left room for discussion about a more proper name. He has tried upon several occasions to add the epithet "Palestinian rabbi" to many articles about rabbis, being reverted mainly by me, and sometimes by other editors. He has also been posting many times on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism with proposals related to pushing the term "Palestinian". All of this interspersed with WP:ANI posts, and recurring incivility (for just a few instances see User_talk:Chesdovi#Nerve). Although I initially was of the opinion that these edits were not related to the Arab-Israeli conflict perse, Chesdovi's patter of massive amounts of edits throughout all namespaces including the word "Palestinian" has changed my opinion in this regard. I am now convinced that Chesdovi has a personal agenda, which drives him to disregard consensus and push the word "Palestinian" with all possible means. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposed results, as stated by EdJohnston and T. Canens. If the months long patter of tens and hundreds of edits through all namespaces and all possible discussion venues I mentioned above is not an indication of "closely related" POV pushing, then I wonder what would constitute such behavior. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just now Cheswdovi created an article, and called it Tachlifa the Palestinian, although the article gave no indication why that should be his name. How can ArbCom deny the obvious POV pushing inherent in such actions. And if ArbCom doesn't agree with me that this fall within the scope of WP:ARBPIA, where should I take all of this? Debresser (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Hasteur (talk · contribs)

A posting on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard was filed by Chesdovi and was closed because it appeared to violate the terms of the Arbitration Remedy. We have left the possibility of opening a discussion on this once the issue of their ARBPIA sanctions is resolved. Hasteur (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Cptnono

In regards ot the admin's comment: A precedent being set for being allowed to make edits as long as they are not controversial is ridiculous. I appreciate that the editor was not trying to be political but he knew politics were involved and it is even in the diffs of that history. An ongoing problem in the topic area is that editors will edit something related to Israel or Palestine but not make it overtly controversial while still making one side look better the the other. I would like to argue that Chesdovi should get a pass on this since he has worked hard on the article and it was for the better good. However, that is not always the case for similar incidents and the remedies in the topic area have been circumvented at every possible opportunity by others. Topic banned is topic banned and if there is any chance that politics could take part (which it did) then it highlights why the remedies were initiated. Of course, there is no precedents anywhere in the topic area when it comes to enforcing restrictions so let this one slide like everything else. And the edits were not meant to be problematic even if drama was caused (no edit means no drama) so that makes it an easy out to again not enforce anything. Cptnono (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Chesdovi

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

There is now a school of thought that people under an I/P topic ban like Chesdovi are allowed to edit articles with the ARBPIA template on them so long as they don't modify anything related to the conflict. User:T. Canens who issued the topic ban thinks this is OK. The present dispute over the wording of Joseph's name is not directly related to the I/P conflict, so I would not want to apply a sanction. Since the submitter Asad112 is OK with closing this, I suggest we do so. Note that articles carrying the ARBPIA template are still under a 1RR restriction for all editors, regardless of whether topic bans cover them. The Palestinian rabbis mentioned by Debresser do not seem to have anything to do with this AE request. Whether the rabbis of 400 years ago should be referred to as Palestinian is not covered by ARBPIA restrictions. On the original issue about Joseph's name, a WP:Request for comment might be opened to gather opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ed, with a caveat: if the exportation of disputes from Arab-Israeli conflict becomes a substantial problem, then it may be appropriate to invoke the provision of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions that authorizes "bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics" and do full Middle East topic bans instead of the more limited ones we are handing out now. T. Canens (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonchapple

No Troubles violation. The edit warring on United Kingdom has not continued since 25 August. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Jonchapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Domer48_'fenian' 19:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonchapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Per Result concerning Jonchapple "User:Jonchapple is placed on Troubles probation for three months. This limits him to to one revert per article per week on all Troubles articles."

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final remedies for AE case "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland..."

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

24 August 2011 1st Revert
24 August 2011 Revert IP no violation
25 August 2011 2nd Revert (Issue has been discussed previously [139]

24 August 2011 1st Revert
24 August 2011 2nd Revert
24 August 2011 3rd Revert

24 August 2011 1st Revert (reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors)
24 August 2011 2nd Revert
24 August 2011 3rd Revert
25 August 2011 4th Revert

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Warned on 14 August 2011 Enforcement Page by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)
Warned on 14 August 2011 User Talk Page by EdJohnston (talk · contribs)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Having been notified on their talk pag and offered advice from admin's this editor deleted the notices despite the advice offered on this type of edit. The editor accuses me of hounding them if I revert any of their edits. Claims that they are now "impotent" on Troubles Articles because of me. Despite been placed on probation of 1RR per article per week on the 14th the very next day they keep reverting me [140][141][142] on my talk page, despite having been asked not to post on the page. They have turned Article Talk Pages into battle fields, making unfounded or unsupported claims and prevaricating when challenged to support them, before descending to just personal attacks and blatant nonsense. I can't be bothered with this editor, and assuming good faith is out the window. Hopefully Admin's can discover what "potency" this editor wants to bring to Troubles related articles.

Despite the claim by Jonchapple that this is not related, their own edit on the Article talk page says the exact opposite. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonchapple describes any editor who correctly states that the the Ulster Banner is not the flag of Northern Ireland as a "attention-seeking antagonists" may explain the antagonism displayed, and their claims of "impotance" as a result of the sanctions imposed here.--Domer48_'fenian' 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ed. While I've no problem with your reasoning, I would make the following observation. If this type of editing is not "Troubles" related:"All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR," I would cite another example to those I've outlined above.

*Example: Liam Neeson. A run of the mill biography article on a Hollywood actor and it could hardly be reasonably construed as being "Troubles related." However, when you have a group of editors who edit Troubles Article, suddenly it becomes quit clear, that a reasonable conclusion is that any article were these editors revert and re-revert can quickly become Troubles related. The Articles I've outlined above fall into the exact pattern in my opinion.--Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [143] Notice was quickly removed.

Discussion concerning Jonchapple

Statement by Jonchapple

Oh, come off it. I've broken no restriction; they're hardly covered. What next, articles about anyone or anything from these islands? I also have evidence you've been actively monitoring my contributions and reverting my edits, so beware of the boomerang. JonChapple ^Talk 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also like to note that on the third set of "reverts" you've cited above, the first two are evidence of Scolaire and I concurrently editing and collaborating to improve the UK article. If you look at the talk page, we're in agreement. No reverting there (no undoing another editor's work), just minor changes. JonChapple ^Talk 21:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here – what on Earth does that diff and me clarifying what I believe the term "Britain and Ireland" to mean have to do with anything? The United Kingdom and Ireland articles clearly aren't subject to Troubles sanctions. Just look at the page histories and the number of editors that have broken the 1RR that would apply if they were. JonChapple ^Talk 20:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. Completely irrelevant to the issue at band. When did you last see me edit-warring, or even editing at all, on any Ulster Banner-related topics or articles? JonChapple ^Talk 20:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Ed, I hardly think changing "often" to "frequently" counts as a revert. I didn't undo another editor's actions; – the words mean effectively the same thing – merely changed the sentence to read bit less clumsily, so there weren't two "often"s in quick succession. JonChapple ^Talk 07:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That edit history merely shows that Liam Neeson's nationality is a confusing mess. I fail to see how trying to decide whether he's British, Irish or American or all three has anything to do with that particular conflict, other than the United Kingdom (and, informally, the Irish Republic) was involved in it. JonChapple ^Talk 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

There is no Troubles violation that I can see, but the reverts listed above seem to show that JonChapple seems has broken the WP:3RR rule at United Kingdom. The wording changes may not look important, but people are actively reverting them back and forth. Here are some of the changes by JonC:

1. "often user the term as a short form of the United Kingdom" => "frequently use the term as a short form for the United Kingdom" [144]

2. "Style guides of British media, as well as British government sources, allow the use of Britain for the United Kingdom..." => "British government sources often use the term as a short form of the United Kingdom, whilst media style guides generally allow its use.." [145]

3 and 4. "an informal name for the United Kingdom" => "a short form for the United Kingdom" (he made this revert twice) [146] [147]

There is some kind of a talk discussion at Talk:United Kingdom#Great Britain, United Kingdom and style guides. Editors who have reverted JonC's changes include User:Mais oui, User:HighKing, User:Scolaire and User:Domer48.

This is a conventional 3RR violation, and if JonC persists, he may be conventionally blocked for edit warring, which the admins here could do if they agree. I don't see any need to invoke the authority of Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jonchapple

Just like to mention, JonChapple's claims of harrassment by Domer48 should be looked at, as i believe Domer48 is trying his best to get JonChapple into trouble so that he can get him banned. JonChapple has raised such concerns to me previously of hounding, and i told them to gather what evidence they can so hopefully they have to show that whilst Domer48 is trying to get JonChapple into trouble for disruption, that Domer48 himself is being disruptive.

The 3RR situation in regards to Ireland articles is a joke as certain editors persue a gang-up policy to ensure none of them break the 3RR whilst getting another editor into trouble. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonchapple

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

I'm inclined to close this as no AE action needed, per EdJohnston, who is the admin who imposed the sanction originally, and therefore whose views on its scope are entitled to substantial deference. As to Jonchapple's claim of harassment, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" contributions.^{US v. Dunkel, 927 F. 2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991)} Such claims need to be substantiated with diffs before they will be considered. T. Canens (talk) 12:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: No violation of the Troubles sanctions. The edit warring on United Kingdom has not continued since 25 August and does not appear serious enough to block for. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding the TM case

In the TM case we passed a number of previsions including one pertaining to WP:COI [148] It states that editor which "have only an indirect relationship" may continue to edit. What about editors who are members of the public relations department of the Transcendental Meditation movement? Are they too allowed to continue editing or should their editing ability be restricted? Would stipulate the specifics off Wiki due concerns of releasing peoples identify if this is indeed a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is better addressed to the Committee directly via WP:A/R/CL. T. Canens (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will bring it their.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote per TM arbitration for reference:(olive (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

...Editors who have or may be perceived as having a conflict of interest should review and comply with the applicable policies. These does not prohibit editors from working on articles about entities to which they have only an indirect relationship, but urges editors to be mindful of editing pitfalls that may result from such a relationship. For example, an editor who is a member of a particular organisation or holds a particular set of religious or other beliefs is not prohibited from editing articles about that organisation or those beliefs but should take care that his or her editing on that topic adheres to the neutrality policy and other key policies.

Vecrumba 2

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Vecrumba 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nanobear (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vecrumba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:EEML#Editors_restricted

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

28 August 2011

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Vecrumba has been blocked many times for violating this ban

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Vecrumba has done a wholesale revert of Russavia on an article which subject is directly within Russavia's editing interests. Vecrumba states that it is a good faith revert, yet he also reverts the bypassing of a redirect by Russavia, demonstrating that it is not a selective revert, but an outright revert. Vecrumba is obviously attempting harrass Russavia, and is breaching his interaction ban in a very provocative manner. Given the other issue of Vecrumba's personal attacks on Russavia (see above thread), a topic ban at the very least seems to be warranted for Vecrumba.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[149]

Discussion concerning Vecrumba 2

Statement by Vecrumba

This filing is nothing but a personal attack by Nanobear, who has been absent from the topic area or proceedings other than to attack me or to make out my complaints about his attacks as being attacks originated by myself. If you want to stop the madness, ban everyone who has participated in any of these from ever filing arbitration enforcement requests against each other. What, I undo a POV delete of content, and that is editorial interaction which is banned, yet the same editor can attack me at will at arbitration enforcement? Am I the only one who sees how ludicrous this is? Don't make me out to be the villain when I undo the deletion of reputable content by an editor inimical to the Baltics—a deletion which was accompanied a edit justification which was a personal characterization of a reputable source as unsubstantiated allegations. As requested, I undid my revert of that deletion, although that does set the precedent that in any set of editors who are banned from interacting, whoever gets there first automatically gets to have their content win with no recourse for the other editor(s). Given that Baltic topics are down to two or three editors who haven't been run off, this filing by Nanobear to get me blocked is, effectively, a cynical and overt bid for topic control. And as long as Nanobear and Russavia engage in provocative behavior gaming the system to eliminate editors, the atmosphere will remain poisoned. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Vecrumba 2

Comment by Volunteer Marek

So much for the idea that AE reconciles warring parties or actually manages to solve problems. As this retaliatory AE request clearly demonstrates, AE makes battlegrounds WORSE, by providing dedicated warriors a venue to pursue their grudges. And yes, you AE admins are to blame for this - discussing some esoteric nuances of what an interaction ban is or arguing over whether a series of reverts/AfD nominations/drive-by-tagging by a user under an interaction ban actually constitutes a violation of an interaction ban or are content edits not included (seriously? The whole freakin' point of these bans is to get users separated from content they perennial fight over! How hard is it to see that?) is exactly the kind of thing that pours gasoline on these fires (where the hell is Sandstein? I miss him - he got things wrong sometimes but at least he didn't make things worse).

Enjoy:

The situation on Eastern European/Baltic topics is now spiraling out of control, going back to the mess of 2008/2009. Have fun with it!

You want to end this, it's simple:

Topic-ban Martin and Vecrumba from editing anything related to Aviation or Embassies (which is mostly where Russavia edits) as well as the Russian space program (which is where Nanobear edits)
Topic-ban Russavia and Nanobear from editing anything related to Estonia, Latvia, Poland or Ukraine (for good measure throw in Hungary and Romania, where there's been trouble in the past). For the most part the aviation/embassy/space program articles for these countries have already been written, can be written by someone else or don't need to be written. This way both of them can do the good they do on Wikipedia - contribute content - without the bad they do - keep fucking with Estonian/Baltic/Polish/Ukrainian editors for no reason except some kind of way old grudge.
Prohibit all of these parties from filing any AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests against each other (hell, throw me in there too) or from commenting on AE/AN-I/similar drama board requests related to each other.

If you're feeling nice then include some kind of provision to the effect that any of the above can be appealed after three years or so (note that this latest round is a rehash of two year old edit wars! Apparently people here have a long memory in this topic area. That needs to be taken into consideration). And if you're feeling wary of potential gaming then make scary faces and wag your fingers and say in a deep baritone that any potential gaming of these sanctions will be severely punished (I'm being a bit facetious, but I'm serious at the same time - this whole thing started because of gaming of interaction bans).

Otherwise prepare to loose more good contributors, deal with a whole bunch of nonsense and look forward to playing a role in escalating the conflict further. But hey, at least then that will give WP:AE a justification for its existence.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Vecrumba 2

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

At my request Vecrumba has undone his edit at Latvia–Russia_relations. The overall problem of how to keep Russavia and the EEML editors out of each others' hair is still being considered above, in a previous report which is still open. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (2)

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Someone35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Someone35 (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic banned for 3 months

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Someone35

Administrator imposing the sanction: T. Canens (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: here

Statement by Someone35

I got banned less than half a day after my first ban ended. I haven't edited anything that is not a talk page or my userpage since then. The admin who banned me said I'm banned for breaking these rules, but they explicitly state that " impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia". And I wasn't warned (which is also required, "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision". I wasn't given any warning before he banned me.) and I didn't edit any page since before my first ban. This ban is really unnecessary. If you think that my interactions with Nableezy are problematic then give me an interaction ban with him and not a 3 months long topic ban. I removed the sentence that I was banned for in the moment I saw that other users complained about it (and the userboxes on my talk page). I have only made about 3 edits that count as "disruptive" (2 at Qula and one at Palestinian rabbis), all in the same day and I already got banned for it and won't do this kind of edits again.-- Someone35 (talk) 05:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000 (somewhat involved)

As far as I know, Someone35 is yet to acknowledge that he did anything wrong at all. On the contrary, he thinks the 1RR rule is "stupid". Is that attitude conducive to a reprieve? Where can we see a clear statement that he respects the rules and undertakes to abide by them? Zero^talk 11:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that this rule is easy to bypass not that it's stupid that people can't revert other people's edits for an infinite amount of time. Also according to this I was supposed to get a warning before the ban, and I didn't. If T. Canens gave me a warning that I'll get another ban I would have stopped immediately doing whatever I did.-- Someone35 (talk) 12:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Demiurge1000 (uninvolved)

I'm going to use this section to note the deep and presumably unintentional irony of what Russavia said in the now-closed Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Someone35 (i.e. his first appeal, above). "Any editor who attacks another editor using either nationality, race, religion, etc as the underlying basis of the attack should be shown the door immediately." Does etc include age? If so, it seems odd to follow that sentence immediately with a disrespectful comment based on Someone35's age. (I'll assume that the threat to contact someone in a position of authority over Someone35 was made entirely in jest; people have received lengthy bans from Wikipedia, never mind the topic area, for that sort of thing.)

I think Someone35 should immediately retract any suggestion (anywhere) that Nableezy or others are "stalking" him, and apologise for the "anti-Semite" remark (I note he removed it some time ago anyway, but I think he needs to accept that his reasons for thinking it was justifiable were incorrect). Then I think some consideration should be given to shortening or otherwise ameliorating this topic ban. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that Someone35 won't be able to act promptly on the first half of my suggestions as, according to his talkpage, he's offline until sometime on 30th August. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, I was away for only 1.5 days and there were no traffic jams so I came back fast. I already removed the userboxes on my talk page and the problematic sentence in Hebrew about Nableezy and the Jerusalem Talmud. According to [[150]], I was supposed to get a warning before being banned (like Nableezy told me to revert my edits at Qula before the first time I was banned), and I didn't. If T. Canens would have given a warning to me then I would have stopped immediately whatever wrong I did-- Someone35 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Russavia (totally uninvolved)

The editor chose to engage in personal attacks against another editor, and then when caught out they say that the editor has no right to complain because it was written in Hebrew. This, in my opinion, is more egregious, as he has not only chosen to engage in personal attacks (which is already enough to be shown the door), but has done so in another language in an attempt to avoid being caught, and then when challenged on it he doesn't see any problem with it. And he only got a topic ban? I'd say he got off light, as if I were the subject of a personal attack, I'd be pushing for a complete block for at least that period of time, given that the editor in question sees nothing wrong with making personal attacks on other editors. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC}

If I wanted to curse him or something like that I would have written it on his talk page in English. I removed that sentence in the moment I saw he complained about it (in order to prevent situations like this). If you think there's a problem with my interactions with Nableezy then why didn't I get an interaction ban instead? I should have got a warning before being banned, and I didn't. Why? I haven't done anything offensive and didn't edit any pages that are not talk pages or my userpage in the past week, then why did I get a ban without a warning?-- Someone35 (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wikifan12345 (involved in topic area)

@Russ-Civility is totally independent of the area in conflict. A topic ban would not be the appropriate punishment for personal attacks - a comprehensive block (typically 24 hours first offense) would be fair. The problem I have is this kid has zero record, no prior blocks, and no accusations since he started an account however many months ago. I don't understand how a 72 hour block can mutate into a 3-month topic ban pending appeal (not even a timed ban). Nableezy himself said the conflict was ended after Someone removed his statement:

I cant say that there is presently an issue. A fourteen year old child said something stupid, it has been removed, end of story as far as I am concerned. Should this child be allowed to continue editing such topics? Not my decision, and not really sure if that is a question to decide here.

Someone removed the comment when he was able to (blocked for 72 hours) and that seemed to settle things. Editors aren't expected to humiliate themselves to prove their ability to edit productivity. He violated basic civility rules by accusing one editor of being anti-semitic. He has stricken the statements, thus admitting the comments were unacceptable. Beyond that I don't see any other behavioral problems. Nableezy filed the original AE, does he/she believe this Someone "child" deserves such a long topic ban? Wikifan^{Be nice} 23:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In light of this edit, I find myself struggling to defend Someone's behavior. As an obviously young editor I would hope administrators would be more forgiving in situations like these. An editor with a vested interest in a crucial area of Wikipedia must understand the dynamic process of collaboration and contribution. I'd say many editors start out with a very SOAPY/opinionated mentality, but eventually normalize themselves with typical procedure and policy.

Someone35 meets this definition. The topic ban imposed on Someone is punitive in nature and will not alter his behavior. How else will he learn the rules if he can't experience the environment? If admins wish to alter Someone's behavior, a whole-sale topic ban is futile. Throwing out users like Someone only deters potential editors from joining the very saturated and almost clan-like pool of I/P users. Someone's original 72 hour block was justified, but the 3 month ban is - ultimately - very hard to support when looking at the evidence independent of commentary from involved users. A personal attack, one edit-war (and barely one), and obvious civility problems. These can be rectified through mentorship, and punished with short blocks. It might be hard for educated admins to understand the brain chemistry of a young editor. Perhaps a user who is closer to his age (openly of course) could weigh in? Wikifan^{Be nice} 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be nicer to him by talking with him about a subject that he seems to be interested in (israeli palestinian conflict), but it went nowhere so I deleted that section-- Someone35 (talk) 08:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cptnono (involved and biased)

The original block was longer than precedent would point to being acceptable. The ban was without any admin actually attempting to counsel the guy. The disruption of edit warring was handled with the block. The incivility was much less than many in the community have gotten away with or received shorter bans for (name calling, legal threats, and so on). Although I would not blame it on him being a kid (if he wants to hang out on the internet he will learn to not divulge information others can use against him) I would blame it on inexperience. I do think he needs to grovel a bit. That is what the admins are looking for. It is wrong of them but that is what they want.

His offenses are worthy of a strong warning and a good mentoring. Not a long block based off of one editor running into trouble with several others on an opposing side. But if he refuses to admit wrong I don't care what happens to him.

You are involved and biased Zero. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Malik Shabazz (involved)

Having spoken with Someone35 earlier today, I believe he is a very young editor who needs to learn quite a bit about how Wikipedia operates. I don't know whether a complete overturn of his topic ban is appropriate, but if it stands I think it should be narrowed to the Arab–Israeli conflict (and not the whole Middle East) so Someone35 can contribute constructively to articles on non-controversial subjects related to Israel (nature, geography, etc.). I think he would benefit tremendously from mentorship; if nobody else steps forward to mentor him, I will do it myself. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Someone35

Result of the appeal by Someone35

Jingiby

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Jingiby

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBMAC

Dscretionary sanctions

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, edit-warring against two other users on two distinct issues:

28 Aug, 04:17
28 Aug, 13:24
28 Aug, 17:05
28 Aug, 18:06. Attempt at discussion [151] proved utterly futile and was met with complete stonewalling [152][153]

Several other slow edit-wars on other articles, mostly against Lunch for Two (talk · contribs) [154][155][156][157][158][159]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Has extensive history of prior ARBMAC sanctions, most recently a full-year ban from 2009 to 2010
Recent warning by myself see above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The current conduct is a return to an old and very constant pattern of stubborn agenda editing; see block log. Jingiby's current opponent, Lunch for Two (talk · contribs), is not much better in terms of edit-warring and is certainly just as opinionatetd and tendentious, but appears to be slightly more sensible in discussion. He would also be in for a sanction, but it seems he hasn't had an ARBMAC warning yet. ~~Unless, that is, he is in fact a returning sock; I have a suspicion he is Mactruth (talk · contribs), who is permanently banned from the topic area.~~ Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Struck out the bit above about the sock suspicion; having interacted a bit more with Lunch now I can confidently say he behaves far more reasonably in discussion than Mactruth ever did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [160]

Discussion concerning Jingiby

Statement by Jingiby

My position is as follows: without to boast, I am one of the most informed editors on the Macedonian issue on English Wikipedia. With one too long, formal block, the accuracy of the most of the articles connected with the Macedonian question will deteriorate, due to the persistent nationalism implemented there by numerous socks from a blocked users, as well as by different IP-vandals. They never will be blocked really or banned formally unlike me. My last block for a year was without serious reason and done more spontaneous then reasonable.

The supercilious bureaucracy looks sometimes quaint and should be restricted as ineffective instrument. Jingby (talk) 08:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by others about the request concerning Jingiby

As the editor clearly does not get it, a one-year block is clearly justified, and I would be somewhat inclined to WP:CBAN the editor as having exhausted the community's patience. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no account but I would like to share my opinion here. I don't know where the user exhausted the community's parience, but if you see his contribs you will see that if he wasn't in this site, the most Balkan pages would have become blatant POVs and propaganda, and the activity of manipulative POV-pushing in some of these pages is still extremely high and in some of them no one reverts it except him. Soon POV-pushing there was in Bulgarians in Albania, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia and Gorani for example, where some editors were removing mass of reliable sources and information, separetely placing POV manipulation, which free editors with disruptive character who only delete information should be blocked much more than a user who only broke the 3rr, in the case surely provoked by POV-pushing. These editors are surely trying to make him nationalistic edit-warrior when he broke the 3rr, but if you check his contribs you will see that the user has not disruptive character neither tendencous editing, one of the best examples for neutrality. I don't know what are the standarts for four reverts, but if he is blocked for a year some editors are going to have fun with some pages in the site, seriously. 213.226.17.10 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Athenean

Lunch for Two reminds me very much of PMK1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who recently had his account deleted and even went around removing signatures because he felt his user name revealed too much personal information. The accounts are virtually identical in terms of interest (essentially single-purpose "Aegean Macedonian" publicity), level of English, and general behavior. It is no coincidence that Lunch for Two appeared soon after PMK1 disappeared. From the very beginning it was clear that Lunch for Two was not a new user by any stretch. Athenean (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jingiby

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

This user is a named party of the original WP:ARBMAC decision (2007), so he's been involved in ethnic wars for a long time. He has been blocked 15 times, for as long as one year. He's been placed under a lot of bans and revert limits, then he gets repeatedly sanctioned for breaking those. Due to the difficulties he finds in staying on the straight and narrow, I think a further block for one year is probably the best way to go. A further attempt at a regular topic ban is probably futile. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that Future Perfect can provide more details of any recent misbehavior by Jingiby. So far I perceive a recent 3RR violation at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. Have there been other policy violations over the last 6-12 months? The 15 blocks certainly speak for themselves, but they are not recent. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cerejota

Attention: This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.

Request concerning Cerejota

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cs32en Talk to me 19:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cerejota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Remedies

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Cerejotas recent edits are disruptive and exhibit a battleground mentality. As the editor has quickly removed notifications and warnings from his talk page, without changing his editing behaviour, a change in his current approach to editing appears to be unlikely.

Cerejota boldly adds multiple tags to the article. [161]
After Cerejota's edits have been reverted [162] by another editor, Cerejota again inserts the tags. [163]
Cerejota boldly removes large parts of the article. [164]
After a sysop removes the tags added by Cerejota, as an administrative action [165], and after I have reverted Cerejota's bold changes to the article [166], Cerejota re-reverts to his preferred version [167], without having achieved consensus for his change, and contrary to the WP:BRD guideline.
After I reverted again to the status quo ante [168], and explained to Cerejota why he needs to obtain consensus for his bold changes (see the somewhat unfriendly discussion on my talk page [169]) and my warning to Cerejota [170] on his talk page, Cerejota again reverts to his preferred version [171].
After another editor advised Cerejota not to re-make his changes [172], Cerejota claims that he does not need to obtain consensus for his changes. In particular, he asserts that restoring the previous version, which leaves open to him to add a reasonable amount of tags, would grant him the right to make bold changes without consensus, instead of adding appropriate tags. [173] [174]

Diffs of notifications or of prior warnings against the conduct objected to (if required)

Notified of the administrative remedies in the 9/11 topic area by Cs32en (talk · contribs). [175]
Warned by Cs32en (talk · contribs). [176]

(Cerejota has removed both the notification and the warning from his talk page.)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cerejota has stated some more detailed reasons for his edits on Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth some minutes ago. I will take part in the discussion there. However, per WP:BRD, this discussion should proceed with the status quo ante restored (possibly with tags added to the article, of course.) Despite the fact that there now appears to be an opportunity to discuss the merits of Cerejotas changes (a content issue), his behaviour should not be allowed to stand, and the status quo ante of the article should be restored pending the discussion on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[177]

Discussion concerning Cerejota

Statement by Cerejota

Comments by others about the request concerning Cerejota

Result concerning Cerejota

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Miradre

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found in this 2010 ArbCom motion. According to that motion, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Miradre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Miradre (talk) 20:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: One month block. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Miradre, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Log_of_blocks.2C_bans.2C_and_restrictions

Administrator imposing the sanction: Atama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Miradre

It is dubious that Atama is uninvolved since he has been involved in a complaint against me started by the person (Mathsci) who also started the AE case: See [178].
That Atama states that someone asked him to look at this case raises the question who did this? Someone already involved who knew that I had had a dispute with Atama?
That there has been a long period without agreement regarding AE indicates that there is uncertainly regarding the situation. So there should preferable be some discussion and consensus by uninvolved editors and not an unilateral decision. Atama stated his intention to block and allowed no time for discussion by uninvolved administrators regarding his justification and the length of the block but blocked and closed the case immediately after stating his justification.
The block seems very long for such an uncertain case.
Finally, the justification for the block is wrong. There is no mention of IQ anywhere in Criticism of evolutionary psychology. Atama states that there is a section regarding ethnocentrism in the article. But that section states that evolutionary psychology does NOT look at ethnic differences but rather about universal human behavior. As such the article and evolutionary psychology is explicitly NOT about either racial or ethnical differences. So to me it seemed that article was safe to edit just because of this section... Note also that no else has argued that the article as a whole are under the ArbCom sanctions. The arguments has been regarding specific statements. No one except Atama has argued that the sanctions apply to everything in the article regardless of contents of the edits. This is a new accusation that I have therefore not replied to. As such it seems to me that Atama should have made this new accusation as an involved party and allowed an uninvolved adminstrator judge its merit after I had had a chance to defend myself against this new accusation. Miradre (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you reply Atama. But regardless of the merit of point 1-4, you made no reply regarding the last point. I think the article makes it clear that it is not about race or ethnicity. Which is why I felt safe editing it so long as I avoided statements about race or ethnicity. Would you therefore consider reverting the block? If you still think that you have a valid accusation, would you consider instead entering the case as an interested party making a new accusation and thus allow me defend myself against the new accusation and allow an uninvolved administrator judge your new accusation? Miradre (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no reply for the last point because I explained my reasons for the decision I made at the arbitration enforcement request before I closed it and didn't feel the need to repeat myself. I have no interest in the articles covered by the arbitration and don't care to become involved in any of those articles. The only reason why I took on the request was because I'm uninvolved, and could close it. I honestly don't like Arbitration Enforcement because (no offense to you) administrators who choose to get involved there have a tendency to be harassed. I closed it in a way that seemed right after looking over the arbitration case, the topic ban, the article, and the actions you took. I have nothing against you and no friends on the other side of the argument (even today I was criticized for being too hard on Mathsci at the COI noticeboard). -- Atama頭 23:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atama

I was asked to close the AE request here, by Captain Occam. I was only asked to make a decision because the request had been open so long, I wasn't asked to do anything in particular.

I commented in a COI noticeboard thread that Miradre's COI accusation against Mathsci and another editor were unfounded, and later warned Miradre that continuing to make allegations could be considered harassment, but that I had no intention of imposing any sanctions at the time. I don't see how that could in any way make me involved. Miradre withdrew the accusations, and the issue ended peacefully (or I thought so at least).

The block is no longer than what the arbitration discussion suggested as an initial block length. I also don't see that arbitration enforcement requires asking for a consensus from other administrators before making a decision. -- Atama頭 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston about the appeal by Miradre

Atama's closure of this AE request was well within admin discretion. Single admins are allowed to take this kind of action. Only an appeal needs to have a consensus of uninvolved editors. The topic area covered by WP:ARBR&I is characterized by extremely tenacious spokesmen for the various points of view. What Miradre called the 'long period without agreement regarding AE' could be due to the fact that admins tend to avoid areas where they expect any decisions they make to be questioned very intensively by the parties. Also the length of the thread showed that great stamina would be required by anyone try to close it. Anyone studying this appeal who is not yet familiar with Miradre's style of editing should take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive163#User:Miradre reported by User:Aprock (Result: 3 month topic ban).

Atama chose to impose a sanction on the ground that the material that Miradre worked on in Criticism of evolutionary psychology fell under his topic ban from race and intelligence. Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Captain Occam

Since it was at my request that Atama closed the AE thread, I guess I should probably offer a comment here.

I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about Miradre’s block. I’m mostly just glad that someone finally closed the AE thread, because it had gone for around three weeks without any attention from an uninvolved admin. AE threads aren’t supposed to stay open for that long, and it’s always annoyed me how incredibly difficult it can be to get admin attention for R&I-related issues, both at AE and elsewhere.

The reason I contacted Atama in particular is because he’d recently warned Mathsci for outing someone at the COI noticeboard, and one of the issues that the AE thread involved was a pair of earlier examples of outing from Mathsci: this on July 7th (indirectly revealing what he thinks is Miradre’s real name, which is listed in on that DA account’s main page), and his edit summary here on August 11th (posted in the AE thread itself, although it’s now been oversighted). Since Mathsci was the person who submitted the request about Miradre, his own behavior was subject to review there also, and I wondered whether admins’ reluctance to examine Mathsci’s behavior was part of why the AE thread wasn’t getting any attention. But since Atama had recently warned Mathsci about a more recent example of outing, I hoped Atama might not have that limitation. I admit I’m kind of disappointed that he chose to not address the issue of Mathsci’s outing when he closed the AE thread, but this is still preferable over the thread being archived while still open, which is probably what would’ve happened if I hadn’t contacted him. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Miradre

Result of the appeal by Miradre

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 927: / Line 927: @@
 Atama chose to impose a sanction on the ground that the material that Miradre worked on in [[Criticism of evolutionary psychology]] fell under his topic ban from race and intelligence. Regardless of how one analyzes the topic of evolutionary psychology, Miradre's general approach to collaboration on Wikipedia is so poor that a lengthy block for disruptive editing would have been equally well justified. There is doubt in my mind whether Miradre's brand of zealous advocacy has any prospect of improving the encyclopedia. (The 3RR thread I cited above shows what happens when his edits encounter opposition). If Miradre's attitude remains unchanged when his block expires, which seems likely, the community will face the question of whether there is any value in letting him return to editing. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 01:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
+===Statement by Captain Occam===
+Since it was at my request that Atama closed the AE thread, I guess I should probably offer a comment here.
+I don’t have a strong opinion one way or another about Miradre’s block.  I’m mostly just glad that someone finally closed the AE thread, because it had gone for around three weeks without any attention from an uninvolved admin.  AE threads aren’t supposed to stay open for that long, and it’s always annoyed me how incredibly difficult it can be to get admin attention for R&I-related issues, both at AE and elsewhere.
+The reason I contacted Atama in particular is because he’d recently warned Mathsci for outing someone at the COI noticeboard, and one of the issues that the AE thread involved was a pair of earlier examples of outing from Mathsci: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mathsci&diff=prev&oldid=438321733 this] on July 7th (indirectly revealing what he thinks is Miradre’s real name, which is listed in on that DA account’s main page), and his edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=444326885 here] on August 11th (posted in the AE thread itself, although it’s now been oversighted).  Since Mathsci was the person who submitted the request about Miradre, his own behavior was subject to review there also, and I wondered whether admins’ reluctance to examine Mathsci’s behavior was part of why the AE thread wasn’t getting any attention.  But since Atama had recently warned Mathsci about a more recent example of outing, I hoped Atama might not have that limitation.  I admit I’m kind of disappointed that he chose to not address the issue of Mathsci’s outing when he closed the AE thread, but this is still preferable over the thread being archived while still open, which is probably what would’ve happened if I hadn’t contacted him. --[[User:Captain Occam|Captain Occam]] ([[User talk:Captain Occam|talk]]) 10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 ===Statement by (involved editor 2)===

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards